hover-element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Hover the element' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally—does it simulate a mouse hover event, trigger hover CSS effects, wait for hover state changes, or something else? It also doesn't mention side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the selector doesn't exist. This is inadequate for a tool that presumably interacts with browser elements.

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?

While the description is extremely concise at three words, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to provide necessary context that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool correctly. Conciseness should not come at the expense of essential information, making this score low despite the brevity.

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 complexity of browser interaction tools and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results it produces. For a tool that likely simulates user interactions in a browser environment, this minimal description leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'selector' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Hover the element' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'hover-element' with minimal additional meaning. While it does specify the action (hover) and target (element), it lacks specificity about what 'hover' means in this context (e.g., mouse hover simulation) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'click-element' or 'drag-element' beyond the basic verb difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open browser page), appropriate contexts (e.g., for UI testing or interaction simulation), or when not to use it (e.g., for non-interactive elements). With many sibling tools available for browser interaction, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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