vnc_get_clipboard

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does disclose that the text is 'last captured' (cached/stale) rather than necessarily live, which is useful. However, it omits what happens when no text is captured, whether the operation affects the remote clipboard, and possible error/empty return behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word ('last captured', 'clipboard text') adds meaning, making it highly concise.

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 no-argument getter, the description covers the basic operation but lacks an output schema and does not specify return type, empty state, or whether clipboard capture must be started separately. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent handling results.

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 the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter information for the description to supplement. This matches the baseline 4 for no-parameter tools; the description adds no parameter semantics but none are needed.

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 a read operation for clipboard text, and the verb 'Get' distinguishes it from the sibling vnc_set_clipboard. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'last captured' or contrast with sibling getters, so it is clear but not explicitly differentiating.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool rather than alternatives like vnc_get_screen_info or vnc_get_connection_health. The intended usage is implied by the getter name, but there are no exclusions or alternative references.

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