wavexis_hover

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the return value ('JSON string with status ok'). It does not explain potential side effects (e.g., triggering hover events), permissions required, or behavior for invalid selectors. Given the lack of annotation detail, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 extremely concise, using a one-sentence summary followed by a two-line Args/Returns structure. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite many parameters (6 in the nested input) and potential complexity (e.g., url for navigation, backend for browser selection), the description provides no additional context. The return value is vaguely described as 'JSON string with status ok' without an output schema. The tool's full behavior remains poorly specified.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters (the HoverInput fields like url, backend, headless, etc. lack descriptions in the schema and the tool description). The description only mentions 'input: Hover parameters' without explaining each parameter's role, leaving the agent to infer meanings from names alone. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Hover over an element matching a CSS selector,' specifying the action (hover), target (element), and selection method (CSS selector). This is concise and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like wavexis_click or wavexis_dom_focus, which target the same element type via CSS selectors.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use hover over alternatives, such as click or tap. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios described. The description simply states what the tool does, not when it should be used.

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