browser_highlight

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that the effect is a visual overlay, implying no page-state mutation, which is genuinely useful. However it omits whether the highlight persists or must be cleared, whether the element is scrolled into view if off-screen, and what happens if the selector matches nothing or multiple elements.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The Args block is mildly redundant with the schema but is justified given 0% schema description coverage, so little space is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter, side-effect-light tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the tab-targeting default. The remaining gap is lifecycle behavior (clearing, scroll-into-view, no-match cases), which is minor but not fully addressed.

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%, so the description has to compensate, and it does: selector is defined as a CSS selector for the target element and tab_id is explained as an optional tab defaulting to the active tab. This fully covers both parameters, though it adds no syntax constraints or multi-match behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (highlight) and resource (an element on the page) plus the mechanism (visual overlay), which is enough for an agent to know this is a display/debugging action rather than a DOM mutation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as browser_element_screenshot or browser_scroll, which an agent might otherwise confuse with a visual element-targeting tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. screenshot, scroll, focus), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage context, that it targets the active tab unless tab_id is supplied, is parameter guidance rather than selection guidance.

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