safari_native_hover

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It details that the tool moves the real cursor, dwells for dwellMs to allow tooltips to render, restores the original cursor position by default, and requires a visible window. This covers all key aspects of tool operation.

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 three sentences, starting with the core functionality, then usage context, then dwell/restore details. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence contributes meaningfully.

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 hover tool of this complexity (OS-level, dwell, restore), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, when to use, behavior, parameter meaning, and prerequisites. It is self-contained and enables correct tool invocation without needing to consult external documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of dwellMs (to let tooltips render) and restoreMouse (restore cursor after dwell). This context goes beyond the schema's descriptions, aiding the agent in understanding parameter importance.

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 that the tool performs an OS-level mouse hover via macOS CGEvent, moving the real cursor to trigger native :hover/mouseenter handlers. It distinguishes from JS-dispatched hover by specifying use cases like Discord server sidebars and portal-rendered tooltips, which sets it apart from similar sibling tools like safari_hover.

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 explicitly advises using this tool when JS-dispatched hover is insufficient, providing concrete examples (Discord, portal tooltips). It also guides the agent on next steps after hover: call safari_wait_for or safari_evaluate to read the tooltip. Additionally, it notes the requirement that the Safari window be visible, setting clear usage conditions.

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