clipboard

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, which is coarse for a tool that contains both reads (info, get_text, get_image) and writes (set_text, clear, set_image); the description never separates the read actions from the mutating ones. It does add useful behavior beyond the annotation, e.g. get_image returning a preview versus writing to file, and how backend selection works, but it never says that 'clear' or 'set_text' overwrite/destroy existing clipboard content.

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 that leads with read/write scope and then tucks action details into parentheticals. It is long and dense but nearly every clause carries information; the only slight redundancy is restating 'file' semantics that the schema already documents.

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 six action modes, eight parameters, a nested rect object, and no output schema, the description covers mode selection and one return form (image preview) but is silent on what info/get_text return, what clear does to existing content, and failure behavior (e.g. no image on clipboard, headless backend limits). Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool this broad.

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 63%, with 'rect', 'text', and 'action' documented only by the enum, yet the description compensates by binding parameters to actions: 'file' for get_image save / set_image load, and 'sprite frame/layer/rect' as set_image sources. That action-to-parameter mapping is genuine added meaning beyond the schema, though the full action/parameter matrix (e.g. which actions accept 'text') is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads or writes the system clipboard') and then enumerates all six action modes with their sub-behavior, so an agent knows exactly what the tool covers. It does not, however, differentiate from adjacent siblings such as 'clear', 'get_pixels', 'draw_image', or 'render_preview', which overlap conceptually with some of these actions.

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 action enumeration implicitly tells the agent which mode to pick for text vs. image vs. metadata, and the backend note ('auto (default): live Aseprite if connected, else headless batch') plus 'Batch mode needs a file path' give real operational context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternative tools for image transfer.

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