extract_text_from_image

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it preserves line breaks/indentation and does not interpret content, which goes beyond the obvious 'extract text' behavior. It does not mention limitations like image quality sensitivity or language support, but for a simple OCR tool the key behavioral aspects are covered.

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 highly concise: a one-line core definition, a practical use-case sentence, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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 single-parameter tool with a simple text return, the description covers the purpose, input formats, output behavior, and use cases. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return details. It is self-contained and complete for typical OCR usage.

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 only gives 'image' as a required string with zero description. The description fully compensates by enumerating accepted formats: local path, http(s) URL, file://, and base64 data URI. This is essential for correct invocation and makes the parameter semantics complete despite 0% schema coverage.

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 states '纯 OCR：逐字提取图片中的全部文字' (pure OCR: extract all text character-by-character), which is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It also adds '不做解读' (no interpretation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_image or analyze_images.

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?

It lists clear use cases (logs, terminal, code, error dialogs, document scans), giving specific context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when interpretation is needed; it only implies this through '不做解读', so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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