ocr_current_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'capture' and 'extract text,' but lacks details such as whether a screenshot is taken, if screen recording permissions are required, how the text is returned (e.g., string, file), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 of eight words, directly front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word contributes to understanding. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters and a simple action.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a basic understanding of what it does and that it returns text. However, it omits important context such as whether the tool opens a UI or runs silently, how the extracted text is delivered, and any prerequisites (e.g., display access). It is minimally viable but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations or output 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially). With no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description detracts from that.

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 the tool's action: capture the current monitor and extract its text. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ocr_image, which likely processes a specified image, and transcribe_audio, which handles audio. The verb 'capture' is specific in context, implying a screen capture.

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 implies usage: when you want to extract text from the current screen. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ocr_image or open_ocr_selector, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Basic implied usage only.

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