Content
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is actionable and well-structured with executable examples and clear workflows including an OCR error guardrail, but it stays fully inline — the OCR configuration detail would benefit from being split into a one-level reference file.
Suggestions
Move the OCR engine configuration, threshold, and env-var details into a references/OCR.md file referenced from the main body to improve progressive disclosure.
Tighten the OCR prose (e.g. drop the editorializing "clearer feedback than a heuristic guess" sentence) to raise conciseness.
Add a brief validation step to the workflows (e.g. check `status` and `truncated`/`skipped_pages` before summarizing) to make the feedback loop explicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean (tables and executable calls, no patronizing concept explanations), but the OCR section includes editorializing prose such as "a real API error from the provider is clearer feedback than a heuristic guess" that could be trimmed. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete, copy-paste-ready examples like `read_document(file_path="uploads/paper.pdf")`, explicit env-var overrides, and a detailed return-envelope field table give fully executable guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Workflows are clearly numbered, and the OCR branch includes an explicit guardrail ("If OCR returns empty, tell the user; don't fabricate") plus a pivot rule for spreadsheets; the core action is a single unambiguous tool call. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and sections are well-organized, but the lengthy OCR Configuration / engine / env-var material is advanced content kept fully inline that could be split into a reference, matching the score-2 "content that should be separate is inline" anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |