desktop_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and largely meets it: it says the action is 'without clicking', that activation only happens 'after validation', and that the follow-up is to observe tooltips/submenus. It leaves validation-failure behavior and pointer-state details unspecified, but the main side effects are disclosed.

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?

A single sentence carries the action, the constraint, the side effect, and the recommended next step without filler. Front-loading 'Move the pointer' immediately tells the agent what operation this tool performs.

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 hover action, the description covers the core behavior and follow-up ('observe tooltips/submenus afterward'). However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return/error semantics and does not state what happens if the snapshot point is stale or invalid.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Recent observed point' does tie x/y to snapshot_id and indicates the coordinates must come from a prior observation, but it does not explain coordinate origin/units, window_id's role, or validation constraints. The compensation is partial.

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 names a specific action ('move the pointer'), a specific resource ('recent observed point'), and a distinctive mechanism ('without clicking, automatically activating the target after validation'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling click/drag/focus tools, and the reference to 'observe tooltips/submenus afterward' pins down the hover use case.

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 clear context: this is the tool to use for hover-only interaction that reveals tooltips/submenus, and it explicitly distinguishes from clicking. It does not name an alternative sibling, which keeps it a step below an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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