input_chinese_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the clipboard-and-paste mechanism but doesn't mention side effects like clipboard overwrite or requirement for app focus. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action and purpose. The parameter doc is slightly redundant but overall efficient.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description misses prerequisites like clipboard permissions or the need for an active text input field. Adequate for a simple tool but lacks completeness.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only restates the parameter 'text' with a minor clarification ('any language'), but lacks details on format, escaping, or size limits. Adds minimal value.

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 tool inputs Chinese/Unicode text using clipboard and paste. It specifies the method and distinguishes from sibling tools like input_text by focusing on non-ASCII characters.

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 identifies this as the reliable way for non-ASCII text, implying it should be used for Chinese, Japanese, emoji etc. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear enough.

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