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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'hover' implies a non-destructive action, the description doesn't specify whether this triggers UI events, requires the element to be visible, has timing considerations, or what happens if the selector fails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's action without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple operation, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (interactive UI action) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what hovering achieves (e.g., triggering events), success/failure conditions, or integration with sibling tools like 'wait_for_element'. For a browser automation tool with no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('selector' as CSS selector, 'tabIndex' as tab index). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 'Навести курсор на элемент' (Hover cursor over element) clearly states the action (hovering) and target (element), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'click' or 'wait_for_element' in terms of when hovering is specifically needed versus clicking or waiting.

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 this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'click', 'wait_for_element', and 'get_attributes' available, there's no indication of when hovering is appropriate (e.g., for triggering dropdowns or tooltips) versus when other actions might be better suited.

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