get_clipboard

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already indicates this is a read-only operation. The description adds that the output is 'base64-encoded,' which is useful but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., clipboard content consumption on some platforms) or formatting nuances. It does not contradict the 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Read' and conveys the essential information efficiently.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details about error conditions (e.g., empty clipboard, unsupported formats) or platform-specific behavior, which could be important for an agent.

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%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema's description already provides (e.g., plaintext vs image). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Read'), the resource ('current clipboard contents'), and the output format ('base64-encoded string'). It is concise and distinguished from sibling tools like set_clipboard (which writes).

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 the tool is for reading clipboard data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide prerequisites (e.g., clipboard access permissions or platform-specific behaviors). No guidance is given for when not to use it.

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