hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the pointer remains on the element ('the pointer stays there'), implying persistent post-action state, but it omits whether the tool waits for the menu/tooltip to appear, what happens if the element is missing, and any side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, the accepted input formats, and the resulting state are all conveyed economically.

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 two-parameter interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and input format. It still leaves tabId undefined and doesn't mention waiting behavior or failure modes, so an agent lacks some context needed for robust invocation.

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. It does add real value by clarifying that 'target' accepts either a ref or a CSS selector, which the bare 'string' schema does not convey, but the second parameter 'tabId' is never explained.

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?

States a specific verb ('move the mouse over') plus the resource ('an element') and the outcome it enables (hover menus/tooltips), which clearly separates it from siblings like click and dblclick. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, but the action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'to trigger hover menus/tooltips' implies when to reach for it, which is decent implied guidance. However, there are no when-not conditions, no prerequisites (e.g., element must be visible), and no named alternatives among the many interaction siblings.

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