hover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly says the action is a hover over an element, but it does not disclose side effects like triggering mouseover events, failure behavior, or whether the pointer remains there. This is adequate but minimal for a low-risk action.

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 short sentence that names the action, the target, and the parameter role. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Even though the tool is simple with one required parameter, the description leaves important gaps: how to get a ref ID, whether the element must be in view, and what the outcome or return value is. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description's phrase 'by ref ID' is the only explanation for the required ref parameter; it clarifies that ref is an element reference identifier. However, it does not explain where to obtain the ref or what format is expected, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific action, 'hover over element by ref ID', which gives a clear verb and target resource. It is distinguishable from siblings such as mouse_move, but it does not explicitly call out the distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer hover over alternatives like click, click_text, or mouse_move, and it does not state prerequisites such as whether the element must be visible. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the one-line description.

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