prepare_ocr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does useful work by resolving the ambiguity of the name 'prepare_ocr' — clarifying that the tool lists files and sizes rather than mutating or converting anything. However, it never states whether any files are written, whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how large directories are handled, which are real gaps for a tool whose name implies a write/prep step.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action comes first and the concrete behavior ('list files and sizes') follows after the colon. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

Both parameters are documented and 'list files and sizes' effectively describes the return shape, which compensates for the absent output schema. What is missing is the behavioral contract an agent needs before invoking: whether anything is created or modified, and how this fits into the sibling workflow.

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% ('Book identifier', 'Directory containing images'), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra semantics such as path format, defaults for the optional book/directory, or what happens when they are omitted; baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb ('prepare ... for OCR') and resource ('a directory of images'), plus the concrete action of listing files and sizes. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling such as verify_image or inspect_page, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over verify_image, inspect_page, or diagnose_error, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether an OCR pipeline must exist or whether files need to be downloaded first. The only guidance is the implicit hint in the phrase 'for OCR'.

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