vision_ocr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says text is extracted 'all' from the image, but omits error behavior, whether the optional task/model hints change output, and any auth or resource constraints.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the input requirement. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It never mentions the image_url input path, the task enum, or the model override, leaving the agent to discover three of six parameters only from the 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and the baseline is 3. The description does add the useful implication that image_path and image_base64 are alternative input modes, but it omits the schema's image_url input entirely and says nothing about task or model.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Extract all text from an image', which unambiguously identifies OCR. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like vision_inspect or vision_layout, so an agent gets no help distinguishing this tool's niche from the other vision tools.

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 how to supply the image (image_path or image_base64 + mime_type), but that is parameter syntax, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to choose OCR over vision_inspect or vision_layout, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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