arch_clipboard_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the detail that it uses `wl-paste`, which hints at the underlying mechanism, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or discuss potential failure modes (e.g., missing Wayland session). This is adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and the use of `wl-paste` in under 15 words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, an output schema exists), the description covers all necessary context: what data is retrieved, the source, and the underlying command. It is fully complete for this low-complexity tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema captures everything. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter information but doesn't need to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current text content from the Wayland clipboard', also naming the underlying command `wl-paste`. This exactly differentiates it from the sibling tool `arch_clipboard_set`, which presumably sets clipboard content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: it reads the clipboard. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, the purpose is immediately obvious and no other tool matches this function. The clarity of the action implies the usage scenario.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.