clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that read requires clipboardRead permission and is best-effort, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential side effects of copy, return behavior, or failure modes beyond the implied best-effort caveat.

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 entire description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key distinctions between the two actions. There is no wasted wording, and the permission caveat is placed exactly where relevant.

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 simple two-action tool, the description covers the action options and a key permission constraint. However, without an output schema, it does not state what a read action returns or what a copy action produces, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether the tool meets its need.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'action' parameter by enumerating 'copy' and 'read' and maps 'text' to the copy action implicitly via 'action:"copy" (text)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though the 'text' parameter could be more explicitly tied to copy usage.

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 identifies the tool as a system clipboard interface with two specific actions, copy and read. It conveys the core function with a specific resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool named 'read'.

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 mentions the two actions and the permission requirement for read, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling 'read' tool or 'type_text'. No exclusions or selection conditions are stated.

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