image_ocr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool preserves formatting and reading order and implicitly states image-only input by redirecting PDFs to another tool. However, it does not describe output structure or edge cases, which is acceptable for a simple OCR 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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences: purpose, suitable scenarios, and PDF alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Tool is simple and has no output schema, but the output_format parameter covers return types. The description provides essential context (scenarios, PDF limitation) and is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; the only extra context is that formatting/reading order is preserved, which aligns with the output_format parameter but is not essential.

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?

Description clearly states it is a specialized OCR tool that extracts all text from images with high precision while preserving formatting and reading order. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (image_understand, image_compare) which are not focused on 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?

Explicitly lists suitable scenarios (document screenshots, code screenshots, tables, forms, scanned documents) and provides a clear alternative for PDFs (use MinerU skill). This gives the agent specific when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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