extract_text_from_screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that extracted text preserves original structure, which is useful. However, it lacks details on limitations (e.g., image size, language support, accuracy) and fails to mention any destructive or idempotent 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 extremely concise with three short sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds optimization contexts, and the third describes the output. Every sentence provides unique value without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, optimization contexts, and return value preservation. It is largely complete, though it could mention prerequisites like supported image formats or error handling for unsupported inputs.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that the 'context' parameter is optimized for specific content types (terminal, code, doc, all), which maps directly to the enum values and gives semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 extracts text from screenshots, and specifies optimization for terminals, code editors, documents, and general content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'diagnose_error_screenshot' or 'image_analysis', which have different purposes.

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 use cases through optimization contexts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'diagnose_error_screenshot' or 'ui_diff_check'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, requiring the agent to infer.

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