hover_sequence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'posts only mouse-move events and does not click,' and explains response fields like moved_count and final position. It also mentions app activation behavior. Missing details on permissions, but overall sufficiently transparent.

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 concise, with no redundant sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage context, parameter explanations, and response details in a logical order. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, one required, and an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects, parameter roles, and response fields. It is well-rounded but could mention potential limits or error conditions. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of steps_per_segment and step_delay_seconds beyond their schema descriptions. It also clarifies the format of points, though the schema already covers this.

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 starts with 'Move the macOS pointer through hover/unhover points without clicking,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself as a hover-only tool and mentions it is the preferred fallback for inaccessible pages, differentiating it from sibling tools like move_pointer.

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 states when to use this tool: 'for canvas-style, WebGL, native, or otherwise inaccessible pages.' It provides guidance on parameters like app_name for activation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the context implies it is for hover without clicking.

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