knowledge_ingest_clipboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions reading and writing but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether this is a mutation (implied by 'write'), error handling (e.g., if clipboard is empty), or rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action but misses critical context: parameter semantics, behavioral traits (e.g., mutation effects, error cases), and output details. For a tool with 2 parameters and implied mutation, this is inadequate.

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 but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'workspace' or 'title' represent, their formats, or how they affect the operation. This leaves both parameters undocumented, failing to add meaning beyond the bare 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 action ('Read clipboard text and write it into a workspace inbox') with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like knowledge_ingest_text or knowledge_ingest_url by specifying the clipboard as the source, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like knowledge_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., clipboard access), when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare it to siblings like knowledge_ingest_text for direct text input or knowledge_write for general writing.

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