browser_highlight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the color (magenta) and that it draws an outline, but omits details such as whether the highlight persists, whether it scrolls to the element, or if it requires the element to be visible. The description is adequate for a simple action but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action ('Draw a magenta outline around an element (by ref)') and appends a practical usage note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential purpose and a key use case. The existence of an output schema (not described) is expected. The description is nearly complete, but could mention that highlights are cleared via a sibling tool or that the highlight is temporary.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'by ref' for the ref parameter, without explaining what a ref is or how it relates to the element. The session_id parameter is entirely ignored. This fails to add sufficient meaning beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 action: 'Draw a magenta outline around an element (by ref)'. It specifies the color (magenta), the target (element), and the identifier (ref). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_clear_highlights.

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 includes the practical hint 'handy before a screenshot', which provides a clear use case. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the sibling context (e.g., browser_clear_highlights) implicitly guides when to use this tool.

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