hover_by_overlay_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and source of the ID, omitting any details about simulated input, event triggering, error handling, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a user-facing 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?

A single sentence with the key information front-loaded. The emoji adds a minor new-feature signal but does not hurt. There is no wasted wording.

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 simple tool and full schema coverage, the description covers the core action and source of the ID. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to disclose return behavior or failure conditions, leaving a moderate completeness gap for an interaction 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?

The schema already fully describes overlayId as the number on the visual overlay. The description merely restates this association ("by its overlay ID from the visual map") without adding format, validation, or usage nuances, so it adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action (hover), the target (element), and the identifier (overlay ID from the visual map). It is distinct from the sibling tool click_by_overlay_id by explicitly specifying hover rather than click.

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 phrase 'from the visual map' implies the prerequisite of obtaining an overlay ID via a visual map tool. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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