hover

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

The description adds the nuance 'without clicking', which aligns with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not discuss potential side effects like triggering hover events or requirements for element visibility. Since annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, the description provides minimal additional value.

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 is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, containing no redundant or extraneous information. Every word 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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens after hovering (e.g., trigger dropdowns, wait for events) or how to handle frameId. With annotations present, it is adequate but leaves room for more detail about the hover behavior.

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 only 33%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not describe any parameters (target, frameId, returnSnapshot) beyond loosely implying 'target' is a CSS selector or element reference. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents underspecified.

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 action ('Move the mouse over') and the resource ('an element reference or CSS selector'), and distinguishes it from clicking by explicitly noting 'without clicking'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'click' and 'click_at'.

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 usage for hovering without clicking, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'click', 'hover' triggers event listeners). No when-not or context guidance is provided, which is a minor gap given many sibling tools.

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