safari_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. It only restates the action ('Hover over element') and does not explain side effects such as triggering CSS hover states, waiting for visibility, scrolling into view, or whether this is an OS-level vs page-level hover.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action comes first and the targeting options follow, making it efficiently scannable for an agent.

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 with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any clarification of behavior, return value, or selection guidance relative to closely related siblings like safari_native_hover, so some context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's 'Use ref, selector, or x/y' groups the targeting modes but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, and it omits mention of the 'receipt' parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Hover over element') and lists the three targeting modes (ref, selector, x/y). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'safari_native_hover', so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use safari_hover instead of alternatives such as safari_native_hover or safari_click. The phrase 'Use ref, selector, or x/y' only describes parameter choice, not tool-selection context or exclusions.

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