get_tooltip_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks multiple tooltip sources (title, aria, CSS, custom), which adds some transparency. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., string, null), error handling, or potential side effects like triggering events or modifying the page. The disclosure is partial.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and the list of tooltip sources. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the verb 'Hover over an element and extract any tooltip text.' However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing sources in a bullet) without being verbose, but overall it is well-optimized.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (4 parameters, nested target object, no output schema). The description covers the hover action and sources, but it does not explain the return value (e.g., does it return a string or null?), error cases (e.g., if no tooltip found), or edge cases like overlapping tooltips. Given no output schema, the description should provide more context on what the agent receives.

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%, with all parameters already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. For example, waitForTooltip's schema already explains the timeout purpose. The description does not clarify parameter behavior or constraints further, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's action (hover and extract tooltip text) and the specific sources it checks (title attribute, aria-describedby, aria-labelledby, CSS tooltips, custom components). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hover_element, which only hovers without extraction, and get_element_state, which may not extract tooltip content.

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 implies usage when tooltip text extraction is needed after hovering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hover_element or find_element. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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