browser_highlight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and visual effect but does not disclose whether highlighting is temporary, whether it modifies the DOM, whether it affects all matching elements or just the first, or if there are side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words or repetition of the tool name. It is front-loaded with the action and effectively communicates the core function in minimal space.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, but it is a browser interaction tool with potential side effects. The description is too sparse to be complete: it does not clarify scope (all matching elements vs first), lifetime of the highlight, or relationship to the current page. This ambiguity could lead to incorrect invocation.

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% for both parameters (color with default red, selector as CSS selector). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents them clearly, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Highlight' with a resource 'elements' and a modifier 'colored outline', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_get_elements or browser_inject_css because no other tool performs visual highlighting. The purpose 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_inject_css or browser_get_computed_style. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., page loaded) or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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