ocr_image

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: return format (JSON with fields like engine, ok, text, mean_confidence, lines with confidence and bbox), preprocessing requirement of opencv, and language mapping per engine. No contradictions.

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 efficiently structured as a docstring with Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, front-loading the core action.

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 presence of an output schema, the description still provides a detailed breakdown of the return JSON, covering all parameters and behavioral nuances. Complete for a 4-parameter tool.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: path as absolute path, engine as list of options, lang as ISO code with per-engine mapping, preprocess as boolean. Adds significant 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's purpose: 'OCR a single image file (PNG/JPG/TIFF/BMP).' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ocr_pdf and batch_ocr.

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 explains parameters and options (e.g., engine choices, preprocessing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. It implies usage context but lacks explicit alternatives.

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