ocr_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like supporting one or more images and outputting line-by-line according to original layout, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention edge cases like image quality requirements, error handling, or language support. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that packs all essential information: purpose, input type, and output behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core function.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output format. It could mention possible limitations or error conditions, but the provided detail is sufficient for typical usage. No output schema means the description's mention of line-by-line output is valuable.

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?

There is only one parameter (image_paths) and its schema description already covers path formats (absolute, relative, ~). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, but the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: extract all text from one or more images via OCR, and output it line-by-line preserving original layout. The verb 'extract' and resource 'images' are specific, and the output format detail distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'describe_image', which focuses on visual description rather than text extraction.

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 implies usage context: use this tool when you need OCR text from images. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer describe_image or exclude non-OCR scenarios, leaving some ambiguity. The distinct purpose helps, but no explicit alternatives are named.

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