ocr_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds context 'using NPU text models', but fails to mention what the extracted text looks like (return format), whether it is synchronous, supported image formats, or failure behavior. This is insufficient for a zero-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core function. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 no output schema and only one parameter, the description should clarify what the function returns. 'Extract text' implies returning text but does not specify whether it is a plain string, a list of segments, or includes confidence scores. No mention of prerequisites like NPU support or image format constraints also leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly hints that image_path refers to a local image, but does not specify path format, acceptable image extensions, file size limits, or whether the path is relative or absolute. This adds marginal meaning beyond the schema's simple 'Image Path' label.

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 verb 'Extract' and the resource 'text from a local image', specifying supported languages (English and Arabic) and method (NPU text models). This distinguishes it from siblings like ocr_current_monitor (which targets the current monitor) and transcribe_audio (which handles audio).

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?

Usage is implied through 'local image' which contrasts with the monitor-based sibling ocr_current_monitor, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention of prerequisites. The description does not provide exclusions or alternative tool references.

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