extract_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the OCR action but does not describe the output format, potential limitations (e.g., handwriting, low-quality images), or error behavior. This is a significant gap given the complete lack of annotation context.

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 sentence that immediately states the core action and adds a brief, relevant list of use cases. Every part is purposeful, with 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with a well-described schema, the description offers enough information to select and invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema means the return value is not explicitly stated, but 'Extract and transcribe text' reasonably implies text output; a brief note on return format would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (image accepts URL or base64; preserve_formatting defaults to true). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Extract and transcribe text from an image' and explicitly identifies the operation as OCR. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_image, compare_images, and describe_scene, which focus on image understanding rather than text extraction.

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 contexts ('documents, screenshots, signs, etc.') that help an agent decide when to apply this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance but offers more than implied usage.

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