zerodom_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the tool fires a hover event that mutates graph state ('isn't in the graph until this fires') and that it returns a diff of page changes. It could add caveats about hover side effects (e.g., triggering navigation), but the core mechanism is honestly 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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The main action and return value are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining why the tool exists and how it differs from click-based interaction.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what triggers the action, what changes on the page, and what the return reflects. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (e.g., node visibility or hover stability), but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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. The lone parameter, node_id, is self-explanatory from its name and the description's opening 'Hover over a node' clarifies it as the hover target. This is adequate for a single simple parameter, though the description adds no explicit format or provenance details.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Hover over a node and return what changed on the page.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it surfaces 'content that a click alone would never surface,' which clearly separates it from zerodom_click_node and the other interaction tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever hover-triggered menus or tooltips need to be revealed, explicitly contrasting with click behavior. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the implied usage is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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