ocr_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the engine (QQ 内置 OCR) but says nothing about return format, accuracy, size limits, failure behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. For a tool with zero structured hints, this is a significant gap.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second sentence is a verbatim repeat of the schema's parameter description, complete with Sphinx-style ':param' markup that leaks authoring artifacts into agent-facing text. Partly efficient, partly redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally cover the return shape and constraints. It establishes the what and the input format adequately for a one-parameter tool, but omits any notion of what the OCR call returns, leaving it only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already fully documented by the schema. The description merely restates the identical text (file ID, local absolute path, or HTTP URL), adding no syntax or format nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource in Chinese — calling QQ's built-in OCR engine to recognize text in images — and identifies the underlying NapCat OneBot 11 action. No sibling performs OCR, so the purpose is unambiguous even without an explicit contrast sentence.

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, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the image must be accessible to the NapCat host), and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything about invocation context.

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