highlight_element

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. It mentions highlighting but doesn't explain what happens during highlighting (e.g., visual effects, potential side effects like blocking UI, or if it's reversible). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (involving UI interaction) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like visual feedback, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters (id and duration). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the purpose of highlighting or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Highlight an element in the app UI' clearly states the action (highlight) and target (element in app UI), but it's vague about what 'highlight' means visually or functionally. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'clear_highlight' or 'scroll_to_element', which might have overlapping purposes in UI interaction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used for debugging, user guidance, or other contexts, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an element ID from tools like 'get_element_by_id' or 'search_components'.

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