ocr_formula

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Specifying that it 'returns LaTeX format' is a crucial piece of information about the output structure that is not covered in the schema, making it highly valuable.

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, highly focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function and expected output format efficiently.

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?

The definition successfully covers both the necessary input (source) and the specific nature of the output (LaTeX). This is highly complete for a specialized OCR tool given the absence of complex output schemas or metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline score. The description does not add semantic value or additional constraints to the 'source' parameter beyond what is already detailed in the input 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 is highly specific, stating that the tool identifies mathematical formulas and differentiates its function clearly from the generic sibling tools (recognize, table, handwriting).

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 clearly targets formula identification, which provides implied usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly advise the agent when to choose this tool over `ocr_recognize` or `ocr_table`.

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