highlight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the highlight is brief, is meant for visible/headed browsers, and raises an exception if the element is not found within the default timeout. This is meaningful beyond the tool name, though it does not detail side effects or non-mutating behavior.

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 compact and efficient: two short sentences that front-load the core action and then add the timeout/exception behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the environment constraint, and the failure mode. The main gap is the unspecified selector syntax, which would be more critical if this were a more complex or destructive tool.

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%, and the description does not clarify what format 'selector' should take (CSS selector, XPath, etc.) or whether it targets the first match. The agent is left to infer the parameter semantics from the parameter name alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'highlight an element', and adds the useful context of a visible/headed browser. It is distinguishable from the large sibling list of click/input/wait tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'useful when narrating actions on a visible/headed browser'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand the intended scenario.

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