wavexis_hover

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, which are consistent with a hover operation. The description adds value by detailing side effects: moving the mouse cursor and firing mouseover/mouseenter events that may reveal tooltips. No contradictions or missing critical behaviors.

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, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then distinguishes from sibling, lists side effects, and specifies return format. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 simplicity of the hover operation, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, comparison to click, side effects, and return format. However, it does not explain session management implications, but that is partially covered by sibling tools and schema. Overall, very good.

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 provides descriptions for each parameter, so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The tool description only mentions the CSS selector and does not add additional context for other parameters (url, backend, etc.). 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 'Hover over an element matching a CSS selector' and explicitly distinguishes from wavexis_click by noting that hover only moves the cursor without clicking. This differentiates it from its sibling tool effectively.

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 explicitly references wavexis_click as the alternative for activating an element, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is sufficient for decision-making.

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