clipboard_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral edge cases beyond that: an empty clipboard is a clean result rather than an error, and a non-serving clipboard owner is reported after a short deadline instead of hanging. These details prevent an agent from misinterpreting empty output as failure and reassure about timeout behavior. No contradiction exits with the read-only annotation.

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 three compact sentences with no filler: the first establishes the core purpose, the second explains the only parameter, and the third covers important edge-case behavior. Each sentence adds distinct value and the most important information is front-loaded. It is an example of efficient, well-structured documentation.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is complete: it explains the default return, the alternative mimetype mode, and the two non-obvious edge cases (empty clipboard and hanging clipboard owners). There is no output schema, so the description appropriately covers return semantics. No prerequisites or additional failure modes are needed for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes types as 'List offered mimetypes instead of reading text.' The description reinforces this by stating 'Text by default; types:true lists the offered mimetypes instead,' which clarifies the default but adds little beyond the schema. This matches the baseline where the schema carries the 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 identifies the resource (clipboard) and the read operation, with 'What is on the clipboard' immediately conveying purpose. It also distinguishes two modes—reading text by default and listing mimetypes with types:true—so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. The read intent is obvious even without an explicit imperative verb, and it is clearly differentiated from the sibling clipboard_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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever clipboard contents are needed, with the types parameter for inspecting offered mimetypes. It does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling list makes the read-vs-write distinction apparent. The default behavior and parameter switch are stated precisely enough for an agent to choose the correct invocation.

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