ocr_layout_vision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format, performance traits ('fast on-device GPU/ANE inference'), platform requirements, and language coverage. It does not mention failure modes or permission requirements, but for an OCR extraction tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 exceptionally concise, front-loading the core purpose and output, then adding backend/platform details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers purpose, return format, backend, platform, and language support, which is strong for an OCR tool. However, it omits any parameter semantics and does not fully specify the block structure, so an agent might not know how to set 'mode' or interpret all returned fields. Given the absent annotations and output schema, this is a noticeable gap.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the three parameters (path, lang, mode). While path is self-explanatory and lang implies a language code, 'mode' remains completely ambiguous, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Extract text with layout analysis.' It also specifies the output format ('Returns blocks with bounding boxes'), which immediately distinguishes it from plain-text OCR tools and other sibling backends.

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 provides usage context by naming the backend ('Apple Vision OCR'), platform ('macOS 10.15+'), and language support ('Best for CJK + major European languages'), plus 'Zero install on macOS.' This implies when to use this tool over alternatives, though it does not explicitly name Paddle or other alternatives as exclusions.

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