ocr_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (text blocks with confidence scores and bounding boxes), which is useful, but it does not mention potential errors, permissions, side effects, or backend behavior with edge cases.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('OCR text from an image'), followed by a brief explanation of the output. Every sentence is informative, with no wasteful repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers the invocation and output format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail. However, it lacks usage guidance and constraints like supported image formats or image size limits.

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 description adds meaningful details for 'image_path' beyond the schema, specifying it must be an absolute path and under the home directory. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description compensates well for the single parameter.

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 'OCR' and resource 'image', clearly defining the tool's function. It also mentions the output type (text blocks with confidence scores and bounding boxes), but it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'extract_text', which could overlap in functionality.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extract_text' or 'image_metadata'. It only implies usage for image files but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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