textual_hover

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, non-creative operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether it triggers hover events, requires no special permissions). It is adequate but adds no extra value beyond annotations.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices completeness. It is front-loaded with the key action, yet lacks essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 low complexity (single action, 3 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (though unmentioned), the description fails to cover important context: it omits explanation of session_id, offset, and the return value/behavior. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that 'selector' is a CSS selector. It does not explain the required 'session_id' (likely a browser session ID) or the optional 'offset' (purpose and format unclear). This leaves the agent with insufficient information for correct parameter usage.

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 ('hover') and the target ('widget by CSS selector'), which distinguishes it from siblings like textual_click (click) and textual_press (key press). However, it does not elaborate on the nuance such as 'simulates mouse hover event,' leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., textual_click for clicking, textual_press for keyboard input). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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