ocr_parse_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses that the tool supports gundam (crop mode) and base modes. It does not describe output behavior, side effects, file handling, or whether any writes occur (e.g., via the output_dir parameter). The description is too sparse to give the agent confidence about what happens when the tool runs.

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 compact and front-loaded; both sentences deliver relevant information with no filler. The format is easy to parse. It could be slightly longer to include more guidance, but for what it contains, it is well-structured.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not sufficiently complete. The agent is left without information on how most parameters behave, what output to expect, or how to handle errors. The basic purpose is clear, but the overall operational context is thin.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains image_mode by identifying 'gundam' as crop mode and 'base' as a plain mode, which adds value beyond the enum values. However, max_length, output_dir, ngram_window, and no_repeat_ngram_size remain entirely unexplained, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a single image using Unlimited-OCR.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (ocr_parse_multi, ocr_parse_pdf) by scoping it to a single image. Mentioning the supported modes ('gundam' and 'base') adds further specificity.

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 the tool is for parsing a single image, which gives context but stops short of explicitly stating when to use it versus alternatives like ocr_parse_multi or ocr_parse_pdf. There is no explicit exclusion or mention of sibling tools. The single-image qualifier is an implicit usage signal, but not a full guideline.

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