image_ocr

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the path must be absolute and local, and returned coordinates are pixel-space, not desktop click targets — a real disambiguation for an agent.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it reads, what query does, what coordinates mean), with the core action front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what comes back (OCR text plus image-local bounding regions in pixel coordinates). However, the presence of limit and cursor signals a paginated result that the description never explains, leaving an agent without guidance on retrieving more than one page.

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%, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It clarifies path (absolute local) and query (filters OCR text), but limit and cursor are never mentioned, leaving pagination behavior completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads OCR text and image-local bounding regions from an absolute local image path. This is clearly distinct from image_describe and image_decide without naming them, though explicit sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

Usage is implied — this is the tool for extracting text from an image — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus image_describe/image_decide, and no guidance on when to supply query versus reading all text.

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