desktop_clipboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description does add genuine context by scoping the tool to Windows and to *text* only (not images or file lists), but it omits that `clear` destroys existing clipboard content irreversibly and says nothing about whether `get` fails on an empty clipboard.

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 names the operations and the resource with zero filler. Nothing is padded and the operation mapping is placed first.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: platform, data type, and the three modes. The main remaining gap is that it never indicates that `get` returns the clipboard text as a string, which an agent must assume.

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 50%: `op` is self-documenting via its enum and default, and `text` already carries a description tying it to op="set". The description's enumeration of get/set/clear largely restates the enum rather than adding format, size, or encoding constraints, so this sits at the baseline.

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 three specific operations (read, write, clear) against a concrete resource (the Windows text clipboard), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as desktop_paste or desktop_type, which also move text around, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied through the operation names; the description never says when to choose this over desktop_paste (which likely consumes clipboard content) or desktop_type. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no stated conditions for picking `set` versus `clear`.

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