animation_highlight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does convey the core visual behavior: a pulsing border and optional label over a rectangular region. However, it does not clarify whether the highlight is a non-interactive overlay, whether it auto-dismisses after a duration, or whether it blocks clicks to underlying elements. These are meaningful gaps for an animation tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and visual effect, and the second sentence adds the use case. Every word earns its place.

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 parametric tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. The main gap is the lack of behavioral detail about overlay behavior and dismissal, but the schema's duration default and the simplicity of the tool keep this from being a major deficiency.

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 already documents all seven parameters thoroughly. The description adds only a small amount of semantic context (e.g., that the label is shown above the highlight, implied by 'optional label'). This aligns with the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 ('Highlight a rectangular region on screen') with a distinctive visual effect ('pulsing border and optional label'), and names the intended use case ('draw attention to UI elements'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling animation tools like animation_click, animation_trail, animation_type, and animation_scroll, which perform different effects.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use to draw attention to UI elements.' This gives a clear purpose and context. It does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, but for a simple visual-highlight tool, the guidance is sufficient.

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