Renforge Hover Element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the target must be visible; it says nothing about how a failure is surfaced, whether hover state persists, what triggers or effects result, or any preconditions, which is a significant gap for a UI-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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 6-parameter interaction tool, which slightly undercuts its value.

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 6 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a UI-automation context, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but targeting, preconditions, and failure behavior remain unaddressed.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'A visible control' weakly gestures at the element-targeting parameters (element_id, text, screen), but exact, expected_frame_id, and project_path get no clarification at all.

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?

States a specific verb (move the pointer over) and resource (a visible control), and the phrase 'without clicking it' implicitly distinguishes it from the click siblings. It does not name an alternative explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternative tool. 'Without clicking it' hints at a contrast with click_element, but the agent is left to infer the trigger conditions and selection criteria on its own.

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