ocr_long_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does so thoroughly. It discloses the slicing algorithm, overlap and deduplication behavior, config fallback defaults, supported URI schemes and file formats, and the JSON response structure. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond what the tool name alone conveys.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, then logically moves through use cases, algorithm, parameters, accepted inputs, and return format. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input types, slicing threshold and defaults, merging behavior, supported formats, and the full return contract sketch. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this tool is left unstated.

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 it does: source is explained with URI schemes and image formats, slice_height is explained as the pixel threshold with a default, and overlap is explained through the overlap/deduplication context with a config default. An agent can correctly understand all three parameters from the description alone.

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 verb-plus-resource statement: slice a long image, recognize text, and return Markdown. It further distinguishes itself from sibling OCR tools by explicitly targeting ultra-long screenshots and chunked OCR processing, so an agent can tell it apart from ocr_image or ocr_pdf.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: for very long images such as chat screenshots, web page long images, and exam paper images, and explains the automatic slicing trigger when any dimension exceeds slice_height. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use sibling tools, so it lacks the final exclusions step.

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