Read Clipboard

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

Annotation contradiction: readOnlyHint=false conflicts with the description stating 'Read the current contents', which is a read-only operation. The fallback and permission details are useful, but the contradiction with annotations forces a score of 1 per the rubric.

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?

Two crisp sentences immediately state the purpose and key behavioral details. No wasted words; the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents, fallback behavior, and permission requirements. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description clarifies what will be returned (text, file references, image presence), which is helpful given the absence of an output 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 clearly states the tool reads the clipboard and specifies the content types (text, file references, image presence). It is easily distinguished from the sibling clipboard_write.

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 implies when to use it (to read clipboard contents) and notes that no permission is required. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the sibling clipboard_write provides a clear contrast.

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