list_paste_strategies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns metadata including an availableOnThisMachine flag and a hotkeyCollisionDetected flag, and details the significance of the collision flag. It is transparent about the output content, though it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the main action and then lists details. While every phrase adds value, the sentence is somewhat long and could be split for readability. It is concise but not perfectly structured.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive detail about the return values: 12 strategies, capability metadata, per-strategy availableOnThisMachine flag, resolved default fallback chain, and hotkeyCollisionDetected explanation. It covers the tool's purpose and output fully, though it omits explicit mention of the operation being safe/read-only.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and description does not add parameter semantics.

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 action (list), the resource (12 paste strategies), and the specific metadata included (capability, availableOnThisMachine flag, default fallback chain, hotkeyCollisionDetected). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_active_paste_strategy and set_paste_strategy by focusing on listing all strategies with full metadata.

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 usage when one needs an overview of all paste strategies and their diagnostics (e.g., hotkey collision detection), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_active_paste_strategy or test_paste_strategy. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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