da_ocr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes the tool as a read operation (running OCR) but doesn't disclose that it depends on the Tesseract engine being installed, whether it captures a fresh screenshot internally or operates on existing data, the latency implications of running OCR, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if Tesseract is unavailable). These are meaningful behavioral considerations the agent would benefit from knowing.

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 a single efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded with the key action (Run OCR on a display) and output expectation. It earns its place but could ideally include more usage detail without being verbose.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance. For what appears to be a computer-use/automation tool with 11 siblings, the description is materially incomplete: it doesn't cover parameter meaning, return structure beyond 'recognized text plus classified UI elements', error behaviors, or when to prefer it over da_screenshot. The description does only the bare minimum of stating the action.

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 for the two undocumented parameters (lang, displayId). It does not explain what 'lang' represents (language code? format?) or what 'displayId' refers to (which display to run OCR on, and the null meaning). The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the bare schema shows. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with zero schema 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Run OCR (Tesseract) on a display') and its output ('recognized text plus classified UI elements'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like da_screenshot (capture image) and da_list_displays (list displays). However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative for comparison, slightly reducing differentiation clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as da_screenshot for visual inspection, nor when OCR is preferable. The description implies the context (running OCR on a display for text recognition) but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use guidance. With 11 sibling tools, some usage guidance would significantly help selection.

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