Desktop Clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say that 'set' overwrites existing clipboard contents, that 'clear' is destructive and irreversible, or that clipboard access may depend on a desktop session/display server being available. Only the three mode names are conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and the three modes stated immediately, and the parenthetical action keys cost almost no words. Nothing is redundant.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional params) and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, for a tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition should at least explain how the two parameters interact, which it does not.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the 'action' parameter has no enum, so listing 'get'/'set'/'clear' in the description is genuine added value. However, the 'text' parameter is never mentioned, and the key relationship — that 'text' is required for 'set' and ignored for 'get'/'clear' — is left unexplained.

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 states specific verbs (read, write, clear) against a specific resource (system clipboard) and names the action keys that select each mode. No sibling tool touches the clipboard, so confusion with the file/desktop tools is unlikely, though the description does nothing to position it relative to them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as desktop_type for injecting text into a focused app versus setting the clipboard first. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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