highlight_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the main effect: visual highlighting plus uniqueness validation. It does not disclose what happens when the selector is not unique, whether the page must already be open, or what side effects occur beyond the highlight.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the parameter explanation is compact with helpful examples. Every sentence contributes information without 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?

The description covers the main input and action, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it omits behavior for edge cases such as multiple matches, no match, or invalid selector format, and it does not state any browser-session prerequisite.

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?

Although the schema has no property description, the tool description compensates by explaining the selector parameter as a CSS selector or ID and gives concrete examples like '#login-btn'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema field name.

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 specific action ('Destaca visualmente') and resource ('elemento na página do navegador'), and adds a secondary behavior of validating uniqueness. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_selected_element, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate them.

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 purpose itself implies the tool is for visually highlighting and validating a unique element on the page, giving clear context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as scan_elements or get_selected_element, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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