pbi_hover_tooltip

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

The description indicates the tool performs a trusted mouse-move hover and returns tooltip text or null. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as potential side effects, required navigation state, or behavior if the target element is not found. With no annotations, it carries the full burden but leaves gaps.

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 sentences: first defines action and parameters, second defines return value. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain selector and ariaLabel, coordinate system for offsets, whether offset values are optional, or if hover triggers tooltip display. The description does not fully compensate for the missing structured metadata.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains offsetX/offsetY as off-center aim (e.g., donut ring), but does not mention selector or ariaLabel parameters. The description adds value for two parameters but leaves half undocumented, making it insufficient for agent 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 clearly states the tool performs a trusted hover to read tooltip text, specifying offsetX/offsetY for off-center aiming (e.g., donut ring). It distinguishes from siblings like pbi_click and pbi_context_menu, which perform different actions.

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 implies usage for reading tooltips on hover, and provides practical guidance on aiming with offsets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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