mac_clipboard_read

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses several non-obvious behaviors: concealed items from password managers are never returned, text is truncated at max_chars (default 20000), and Universal Clipboard reads fetch from the other device and are marked remote:true. These are exactly the operational details annotations cannot convey.

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?

Five compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format semantics, then layered with truncation, concealment, and remote-fetch caveats. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description still communicates return shape (image returned as an image, remote:true marker, text truncation) and the security caveat. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it defines the accepted format values and what each returns, and states max_chars' purpose and default. No ambiguity remains about either parameter despite the bare schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Read the clipboard') and immediately enumerates the format modes (auto, text, files, image) plus auto's resolution order (file paths, else image, else text). This distinguishes it from the sibling mac_paste, which writes clipboard content rather than reading it.

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?

It gives a clear conditional guideline: 'read it only when the task needs it' because the clipboard can hold secrets. That is real when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion (e.g., use mac_paste to write), so it falls just short of a 5.

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