highlight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the tool is for debugging, but does not disclose whether highlighting is temporary or persistent, whether it modifies the page, required permissions, or what happens after the highlight ends.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Every word earns its place only because there are so few words; the phrase is too sparse to guide correct invocation.

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?

This is a browser automation tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools. The description is far too thin to be complete; it omits param semantics, behavioral effects, and usage conditions entirely.

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 three parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. It does not explain the required selector, the meaning or format of color, or the units and default for duration. The description adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb and resource ('Highlight elements') and adds a parenthetical context ('debugging'), so the basic action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling visual or inspection tools, and the fragmentary phrasing leaves the exact effect ambiguous.

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 '(debugging)' implies a debugging context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like screenshot, snapshot, or eval. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are named.

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