browser_clipboard_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the tool is 'SECRET-SAFE' and inspects only the shape 'without exposing content,' which is critical behavioral context for a clipboard tool. It does not explicitly state that it does not modify the clipboard, but 'inspect' strongly implies a read-only operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important guarantee ('SECRET-SAFE'), followed by the precise list of returned metrics and a concrete usage example. Every part earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it names all returned fields, explains the safety behavior, and provides a realistic scenario for when to invoke it. An agent knows what it will receive and why this tool exists.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output shape instead.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: inspecting the clipboard's shape rather than its content, and lists the exact metrics returned (length, trimmed length, has_whitespace, looks_like_uuid, looks_like_url). It distinguishes itself from clipboard-related siblings like browser_copy_to_clipboard and browser_paste_from_clipboard by emphasizing that content is never exposed and only shape is inspected.

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 gives a concrete use case: verify a copy landed before pasting, with a helpful example distinguishing a ~40-char secret from a UUID. It implies this is the safe pre-paste check, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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