highlight

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

With annotations already indicating non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, the description adds the return type and the ability to highlight one or all features. However, it does not explain that highlighting is temporary, how multiple highlights are handled, or the effect of the clear parameter, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 concise with two sentences: the first explains the core functionality, and the second specifies the return format. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value but lacks context on parameter usage (e.g., what happens when clear is true vs. false) and the temporary nature of highlights. It is minimally complete but could better guide the agent on typical workflows.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on parameter defaults or interactions, such as the relationship between clear and color or featureIndex. Baseline 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 clearly states that the tool highlights one or every feature in a GeoJSON layer, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like addGeoJsonLayer, which focus on adding layers rather than modifying their visual presentation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to highlight versus using setLayerVisibility or addGeoJsonPrimitive. It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist) and conditions for using the clear parameter.

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