ocr_image_base64

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions input format and parameter defaults but omits output format, error handling, rate limits, or size constraints. The output schema exists but the description does not reference return values.

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 with a clear structure: purpose, use case, parameter list. Each sentence adds value, though the token-saving scenario could be inferred. No unnecessary repetition.

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 params, no nesting) and existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks mention of return values or error scenarios, requiring the agent to rely on the output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: image_base64 clarifies prefix allowance ('含或不含 data URL 前缀均可') and is_handwritten explains default false. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states 'Extract text directly from base64 encoded images', clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., ocr_directory, ocr_pdf_page) by implying base64 input, but does not explicitly compare alternatives.

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 a token-saving scenario when base64 is already available ('当图片已经以 base64 形式存在...省去写入文件步骤'). This provides usage context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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