ocr_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are returned in input order and separated by delimiters, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error handling for individual image failures, size limits, or timeouts, leaving gaps for a mutation-like batch operation.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a usage note, parameter descriptions, and return format. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, achieving high information density.

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 annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. It lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., file existence), and limits, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values. Overall, sufficient for typical use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear descriptions for both parameters: 'file_paths: absolute local path list' and 'is_handwritten: whether handwritten notes, default False'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title, fully covering parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states 'Batch OCR multiple local images, one call returns all results', which clearly defines the action (batch OCR) and the resource (local images). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that handle single images, PDF pages, or directories, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Save token scenario: When needing to OCR multiple images, avoid multiple MCP call round-trips by merging into one call.' This guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where seperate calls might be better (e.g., incremental results), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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