ocr_image

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. It discloses the return format but does not mention any behavioral traits such as supported image formats, file size limits, or safety implications. The 'must be under home directory' constraint is a parameter limitation, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 efficient: a one-line purpose, a brief explanation of behavior, and a parameter doc. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the argument, the extraction behavior, and the return format (text blocks with confidence and bounding boxes). The output schema exists, so return details are not needed. A minor gap is the lack of failure scenarios, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 gives only a field name and type, with 0% schema description coverage. The description's Args section adds essential meaning: 'Absolute path to the image file (must be under home directory)'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of detail.

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 opens with 'OCR text from an image', clearly naming the action and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying OCR on images, and the mention of 'text blocks with confidence scores and bounding boxes' further defines its scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'extract_text'. The description implies use for image OCR but does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer.

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