Read or write Windows clipboard

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the title already implies. It does not disclose that setting the clipboard overwrites previous content, that the clipboard is shared across applications, or that only text is supported. The description is too minimal to add value given the sparse annotations.

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, very concise with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb. However, it could benefit from a slight structure (e.g., separating read and write cases) or listing the action enum. It is not overly verbose but is borderline too brief.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks details like the dependency of 'text' on the action, the return value of 'get', clipboard availability, or the limitation to text. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly links 'read' to the 'get' action and 'write' to the 'set' action, and mentions 'text' as the data. However, it does not explicitly explain that 'text' is required only for 'set', that the max length is 4MB, or the enum values. It adds some meaning but not enough for complete clarity.

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 reads or writes text to the clipboard. It distinguishes from siblings like file operations and exec, as clipboard access is unique. However, the description is nearly a tautology of the title 'Read or write Windows clipboard' and adds only the word 'text' and 'interactive'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools like read_file, write_file, or exec could conceptually be used for similar data transfer, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.

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