highlight-marketing-tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only offers a high-level statement. It does not explain how highlighting is applied, whether the page is modified, if authentication or rate limits apply, or what the return value looks like. Essential behavioral details are absent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It has no redundant fluff and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, exemplifying good conciseness.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It does not clarify the output format, how highlights are rendered, or how this tool differs from similar siblings like visualize-marketing-tech. The tool's nominal simplicity is not enough to compensate for these gaps.

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 describes both parameters (url, highlightPixels) with 100% coverage, so the description need not elaborate on them. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the high schema coverage supports a baseline score of 3.

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 the tool's function: taking a screenshot and visually highlighting marketing technologies. The verb 'take a screenshot' and the qualifier 'with marketing technologies visually highlighted' distinguish it from sibling tools like puppeteer_screenshot or find-marketing-technologies, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find-marketing-technologies or visualize-marketing-tech. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or context, forcing the agent to rely on the tool name and schema for decision-making.

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