imgui_hover_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The description doesn't clarify whether this actually triggers ImGui hover state or just moves raw mouse position, whether it respects safe-area/viewport boundaries, whether it's instant or animated, or whether it requires the target widget to be currently visible/rendered. Key behaviors likely relevant for testing hover interactions are undisclosed.

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?

One sentence, zero filler words. It's appropriately brief for a simple tool. Not penalized for being short since the action is conceptually straightforward.

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?

For a simple hover action this is borderline acceptable, but given no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling set that includes closely related tools (imgui_set_mouse_pos, imgui_click_widget, imgui_focus_widget), the description fails to clarify the tool's specific role. The distinction between 'hover over a widget' and 'set mouse position' is meaningful for automation correctness and is not addressed.

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 100%, so both parameters (id and window) are already described in the input schema. The description adds no semantic nuance beyond the schema — it doesn't clarify what format window/id take, whether IDs are hierarchical/path-based, or how the cursor lands on the widget (center point vs corner). With full schema coverage, baseline 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 'Move the mouse cursor to hover over a widget' uses a specific verb (move) plus a resource (mouse cursor) and target (widget). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like imgui_click_widget (clicks) and imgui_set_mouse_pos (sets absolute position). Though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from imgui_set_mouse_pos, the intent is clear enough given the tool name.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like imgui_click_widget, imgui_focus_widget, or imgui_set_mouse_pos. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the window must be visible or rendered first), no exclusions, and no indication of whether this triggers hover effects or just positions the cursor. The description is minimal and provides no usage context.

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