cloak_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 only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it waits for the element to be visible, whether it triggers hover events, or if it has any side effects. For a tool that simulates user interaction, more transparency is needed. A score of 2 reflects the lack of essential behavioral details.

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, brief sentence with no extraneous words. It is well front-loaded and communicates the core action efficiently. Every word is necessary.

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 tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic action. However, it does not explain what 'hover' means in terms of UI automation (e.g., 'simulates moving the mouse cursor over the element and triggering any associated hover effects'). Considering the number of sibling tools, a slightly richer description would improve completeness. Hence, a score of 3.

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 already describes the 'ref' parameter as 'The element reference.' The description adds 'ref ID,' which is slightly more specific but does not provide substantial new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description offers marginal improvement.

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 action ('hover') and the target ('element identified by its ref ID'). It uses a specific verb and resource, which is good. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like cloak_click or cloak_press, but the action 'hover' is distinct enough to convey the purpose. A score of 4 is appropriate because it is clear but lacks additional context that could make it excellent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain that hover is used to trigger hover effects or to position the mouse before clicking. Without such context, the agent has to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for complex scenarios. Therefore, a score of 2 is warranted.

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