ocr_directory

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior: it mentions sorting by filename, compact format, and parameter defaults. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., file modification), error handling, or performance characteristics for large directories.

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 summary, a brief use-case note, and a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no redundant words.

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 5 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format (sorted, compact). It lacks details on permissions, file size limits, or error scenarios, but is adequate for a typical agent.

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 fully explains all 5 parameters: directory_path, extensions with default, recursive, is_handwritten (handwritten notes), and confidence_threshold. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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 verb and resource: '批量 OCR 目录下所有图片' (batch OCR all images in a directory). It highlights the one-step nature (directory scan + batch OCR) and distinguishes from siblings like ocr_batch and ocr_image_base64 by focusing on directory-level input.

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 suggests a use case: saving tokens by avoiding separate directory listing, and indicates suitability for batch extraction from scanned books. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use.

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