extract_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that OCR is used, that all visible text is extracted, and that output is verbatim, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not cover failure modes or image format limitations, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second lists concrete use cases. Every word earns its place.

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 an output schema and no complex side effects, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, when to use it, and the key behavioral constraint (verbatim OCR). It is not exhaustive but adequately complete for its low complexity.

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 0%, but the only parameter is 'path' and the description's phrase 'from a local image' clearly establishes that path refers to a local image file. This compensates for the lack of schema documentation, though it does not specify path syntax or accepted formats.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Extract all visible text (OCR) from a local image verbatim.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like describe_image by focusing on text extraction rather than image description, and adds qualifiers ('all visible', 'verbatim') that make the scope precise.

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 second sentence gives concrete use cases: 'Use for code screenshots, terminal output, or error dialogs.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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