clipboard_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the operation is a read and is limited to text content, which communicates non-destructiveness. However, it does not mention what happens with non-text clipboard data, an empty clipboard, or whether reading can fail.

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 one tightly scoped sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action and resource immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 zero-argument, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly complete: it specifies the platform, the clipboard, and that text content is returned. It could still mention edge cases like non-text clipboard contents or permission requirements, but the core invocation context is clear.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation gap. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('current text content from the macOS clipboard/pasteboard'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool clipboard_write by focusing on reading rather than writing.

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 clearly implies this tool is used whenever the agent needs the current clipboard text. There is no alternative read-focused sibling, so no exclusion is strictly necessary; clipboard_write is obviously the complementary write tool even though it is not named explicitly.

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