run_paste_injection_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the target is a spawned scratchpad (not active window), the focus-policy flip is reverted after the test, and it is Wayland+GNOME only. It also notes return diagnostics. This goes beyond basic explanation and ensures safe usage.

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 moderately efficient, with all sentences contributing useful information. It is well-structured: purpose first, then details. A minor improvement could be slightly shorter phrasing, but overall effective.

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's complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains return values (match status and diagnostic), platform limitations, safety, and defaults. Nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining defaults (text defaults to timestamped marker, strategy default 'ydotool_type', captureSeconds default 6s) and suggesting use of list_paste_strategies to discover strategy names. This enriches the 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 it is a 'real end-to-end paste injection test' and details the process of spawning a scratchpad, flipping focus policy, firing paste strategy, and capturing results. It distinguishes from siblings like list_paste_strategies and test_paste_strategy by being an actual end-to-end test rather than just listing or setting strategies.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for testing paste injection) and includes safety assurances. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly with the sibling test_paste_strategy tool.

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