highlight_failures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Tapir add-on dependency but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, clears previous highlights, or what happens if the rule fails or has no failures.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action, target, and a key prerequisite.

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 output schema covers return values, and the tool is simple. However, the lack of parameter descriptions and minimal behavioral transparency leave gaps, though not severe enough for a lower score.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the parameters. 'failing a rule' hints at rule_id but does not describe its format or purpose, and port is entirely unexplained.

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?

Clearly states a specific action ('Highlight') on a specific resource ('the elements failing a rule') with a location ('in the Archicad window'). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_rule or create_issues_from_failures.

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?

Provides clear context by stating it requires the Tapir add-on, implying use when that add-on is available. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions.

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