hover

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states that hover triggers UI and returns page_state with revealed elements. However, it does not disclose hover duration, potential side effects (e.g., persistent menus), or error handling. Adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a usage tip. All sentences are meaningful and front-loaded with core purpose. No wasted words.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main functionality: triggering hover-dependent UI and returning page_state. It differentiates from siblings. Missing details like error handling or asynchronous behavior, but these are acceptable for a straightforward tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add extra meaning to parameters. The schema already describes 'selector' and 'widen' adequately. No additional parameter context is provided in the description, so baseline 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 function: 'Hover the mouse over a page element to trigger hover-dependent UI such as tooltips, dropdown menus, or expandable content.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like click by specifying when to use hover instead. Strong verb+resource combination.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this before click when content only appears on mouseover; use click instead if the element needs activation rather than hover.' This clearly contrasts with the click sibling. However, no exclusions for other scenarios (e.g., dynamic elements) are mentioned.

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