get_paste_target

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool detects window compositor type and its relevance, but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. For a read-only detection tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, context, and importance. No extraneous words 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its return meaning (XWayland, Wayland-native, or unknown). It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100% by vacuity), so the description is not required to detail param semantics. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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's function: detecting whether the focused window is XWayland or Wayland-native. It uses specific and distinct language ('detect', 'XWayland or Wayland-native') that differentiates it from sibling tools like get_platform or get_windytune_state.

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 explains when to use the tool: 'agents use it to verify their assumptions before picking a strategy', and provides context about keystroke differences. It does not explicitly state when not to use or specify alternatives, but the usage context is clearly implied.

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