Transcribir imagen

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the safety/behavior burden. It does so by declaring local OCR, no network upload, no token consumption, and plain-text output. It doesn't discuss failure modes or supported image formats, but for a read-only utility these are the most important behavioral facts.

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 clauses: the core action, the privacy/cost behavior, and the return type. Nothing is redundant and the main purpose is 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 a simple schema and three clearly described parameters, the description plus schema is enough for an agent to invoke the tool. The main gaps are the absence of an output schema and a small ambiguity between 'texto plano' and the 'bloques' output (which can include confidence metadata), but these don't block correct use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains 'ruta', 'idioma', and 'bloques'. The description contributes no parameter-specific details beyond the plain-text output, which is more about return shape than input semantics.

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 a specific action ('Extrae el texto de una imagen') and names the mechanism (OCR local con tesseract.js), which clearly differentiates it from a general 'analizar_imagen' sibling. The expected output (plain text) is also stated.

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 privacy/cost characteristics ('No sube la imagen a internet y no gasta tokens') provide clear situational context for choosing this tool, especially against cloud-based analysis. It doesn't explicitly name 'analizar_imagen' as the alternative for non-OCR analysis, so exclusions are only implied rather than stated.

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