extract_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as extraction (read-only) but does not mention the output format, potential limitations, or whether the original file is modified. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single bilingual sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no extraneous information. It is extremely concise while conveying the essential function.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should explain the return value or result of the OCR operation, but it does not. It also lacks details about supported image formats or error conditions, making it incomplete for a tool without schema-based output documentation.

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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter image_path, including its type and description. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool performs OCR to extract text from an image file on disk, using a specific verb ('extract'/'OCR') and resource ('text from image file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_image or describe_ui by naming the exact function.

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 extracting text via OCR but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The usage context is inferred from the name and description rather than stated.

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