hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing side effects, such as whether it triggers mouseover events, waits for a response, or affects page state. This is a significant gap for a user-interaction tool.

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 with no wordiness. It is direct and easy to read, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. Overall, it is appropriately concise for its simplicity.

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?

The description is too minimal to provide adequate context. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate by explaining when to use the tool, potential side effects, or how it interacts with the page. None of this is present, making it incomplete.

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 all parameters (page and selector), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so it stays at the baseline for schema-covered tools.

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 identifies the action (hover) and the target (an element), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like click or type_text. However, it does not add additional scope such as 'in the current page' or 'using a CSS selector', so it falls short of a full 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 provides no guidance on when to use hover versus alternatives like click or drag. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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