get_resource_ocr_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses the prerequisite OCR setting, defines all possible ocr_status values (0-4), explains the retry behavior for incomplete processing, and mentions the ocr_error field. It even notes that search_notes may already index OCR text. This goes well beyond a basic read hint.

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 more than a few sentences but each segment earns its place: purpose, prerequisite, status semantics, and search alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff. Slightly long but well-structured with paragraph breaks.

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 doesn't need to list return fields, yet it still explains the ocr_status codes and ocr_error. It covers prerequisites, retry logic, parameter format, and alternatives, making it complete for an agent to use safely.

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 only says resource_id is a string. The description adds meaningful format guidance: 'from a note body link like ':/<id>''. This helps the agent construct the correct value. While not exhaustive, it compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch the OCR-extracted text for a Joplin resource' and highlights that it does so 'without downloading the file itself,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_resource_file. It also specifies the use case for screenshots/scanned PDFs, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: requires Joplin's OCR feature enabled and processing finished. It also names an alternative, search_notes, and explains when this tool is unnecessary. This is exactly the kind of guidance needed for an agent to choose among siblings.

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