ui_hover

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

The description only states the action 'hover' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the element is scrolled into view, how multiple matches are handled, or error behavior when the element is not found. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short of meaningful transparency.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and target. There is no redundant information or filler, making it optimally concise and front-loaded.

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 is simple with two parameters and no output schema, so a brief description is somewhat sufficient. However, it lacks details about failure scenarios and does not mention the 'class-contains' selector option. It also provides no context on how hover behaves in the broader UI automation workflow, making it only minimally complete.

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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the two parameters with descriptions for 'by' and 'value'. The description partially repeats the enum values (aria-label, data-name, text) without adding new meaning, and it omits 'class-contains'. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: hovering over a UI element using specific selector strategies. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ui_click and ui_find_element by naming the action. However, it omits the 'class-contains' selector strategy that is present in the schema, making it slightly incomplete.

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 does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, and does not reference sibling tools like ui_click or ui_find_element. This leaves the agent without contextual direction for tool selection.

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