extract_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It adds a path constraint (must be under home directory) and mentions a single JSON response, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential limitations, though 'extract' implies non-destructive.

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, with a clear summary and an Args section for parameter details. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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 output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values in-depth. It covers the tool's combined purpose, the parameter constraint, and the response format. Missing details like supported image formats are minor given the schema.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining image_path is an absolute path and must be under the home directory, adding meaning beyond the bare string type.

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 extracts all text and metadata from an image. It explicitly positions itself as a convenience wrapper combining OCR and metadata, distinguishing it from siblings like ocr_image and image_metadata.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for when both text and metadata are needed, as it combines both. Sibling tool names imply the alternatives, though no explicit 'when not to use' is provided.

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