讀剪貼簿

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the character limit but omits other relevant behaviors such as return format (does it return the raw text? empty string on no text?), error conditions (e.g., permission denied, inaccessible clipboard), or side effects (presumably none, but not stated). For a tool with zero annotation support, this is insufficient.

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 that states the action, resource, and limit without any fluff. It is concise and perfectly structured for quick comprehension.

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 no-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what it does and the size cap, but it leaves out edge-case behavior (empty clipboard, non-text content) and return details. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more clarity would improve completeness, though the tool's simplicity makes this a moderate gap.

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 schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none exists. The schema fully covers this aspect, so no additional description is required.

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'), the resource ('clipboard'), and adds a specific constraint (character limit of 20,000). It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, none of which mention clipboard functionality.

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?

There are no sibling clipboard tools, so no alternative routing is needed. The description implicitly conveys its use case (reading clipboard text) but does not specify when to use it over other tools, nor does it describe typical scenarios or exclusions (e.g., non-text clipboard content). Some guidance would be useful but is not critical given the lack of competing tools.

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