app_hover

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 clearly states that the tool moves the pointer over an element and triggers hover-only UI, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., no click, no state change) or waiting behavior, but the description is sufficiently transparent for a hover action.

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 front-loads the verb and purpose. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema and simple behavior, the description is adequate but lacks details on failure cases (e.g., element not found, hover not triggering UI) and waiting behavior. It provides enough context for basic use but could be more complete for robust agent decision-making.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'by selector or text', which is already in the schema. It does not elaborate on how parameters like 'exact' are used, relying on the schema's own descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Move the pointer over' and identifies the resource 'an element' with clear methods ('by selector or text'). It explicitly states the purpose is to 'trigger hover-only UI (tooltips, hover menus)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like app_click (click) and app_scroll (scroll).

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 when to use this tool (when hover-only UI like tooltips or hover menus need to be triggered), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives from the sibling list (e.g., app_click for clicking). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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