mealie_extract_recipe_text_from_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly describes the preprocessing steps (grayscale, contrast, binarization) and that the output is raw, unstructured text. This goes beyond a simple 'extracts text' statement and gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses efficient formatting (dashes for preprocessing steps). Every sentence adds value: the workflow, the preprocessing detail, and the cost-saving motivation. No redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (image loading, OCR, preprocessing) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key aspects: what it does, how it works, and its role in a larger recipe-import pipeline. It lacks only minor details like supported image formats or explicit error behavior, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains the primary parameter image_url by stating the tool loads images from a URL or local path. However, it completely omits any explanation of the ocr_lang parameter (default 'deu+eng'), leaving half the parameters without added meaning.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'OCR: Extrahiere Rohtext aus einem Kochbuchfoto/Screenshot' (extract raw text from a cookbook photo/screenshot). This unambiguously states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like mealie_create_recipe_from_text or mealie_create_recipe_from_url, which handle structured text or URL-based recipe retrieval.

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 clear usage context: it explains the workflow (extract raw text → structure with a text LLM → import with mealie_create_recipe_from_text) and mentions the cost-saving benefit ('spart teure Vision-API-Aufrufe'). This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives.

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