find-highlight-in-browser-tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It states the action but omits key traits such as whether highlighting is persistent, whether it scrolls or focuses the tab, what happens with zero or multiple matches, and whether any permissions are needed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. The parenthetical adds a useful constraint efficiently. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the completeness gaps elsewhere.

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 browser-tab tool with two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the tabId parameter, highlight behavior, side effects, or expected return, leaving an agent under-informed for correct 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 0% for two required parameters. The description loosely covers 'queryPhrase' by saying it should exist in the web content, but it does not mention 'tabId' at all and adds no matching or tab-reference semantics beyond what is already implied by the parameter name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find and highlight text in a browser tab.' This is clear and agent-actionable. However, it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as get-tab-web-content or capture-tab-screenshot, so it falls short of a 5.

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 parenthetical 'use a query phrase that exists in the web content' gives a useful precondition for the query phrase, implying the tool is for locating text already present. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get-tab-web-content, and no exclusions are provided.

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