Hover

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that hover is intended to reveal UI elements, returns a hoveredAt object, and explicitly says 'without clicking'. While annotations already indicate non-read-only and idempotent behavior, the description provides valuable context like the side effect of revealing menus and the return value.

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 well-structured with clearly labeled Args, Returns, and Examples. It is concise, using 'same as operagx_click' to avoid redundancy, and every section earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (8 optional params, multiple targeting methods), the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the parameter groups, the return value, and a workflow example tying into operagx_map_elements. The output schema further covers return details, so nothing is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical grouping and exclusivity: 'elementId / selector / x+y: exactly one' and 'tabId / tabIndex / matchUrl / matchTitle (optional)'. This information is not in the schema and clarifies how to select the target and tab.

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: 'Moves the mouse over an element or point without clicking', which distinguishes it from operagx_click. It also specifies the purpose ('to reveal a hover-triggered menu or tooltip'), making the resource and scope explicit.

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?

It provides a concrete when-to-use scenario: 'open the dropdown that only appears on hover' -> hover first, then use operagx_map_elements. It also references operagx_click for targeting semantics, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the example.

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