hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return confirmation, multi-agent tab ownership rules, the TAB_NOT_OWNED rejection, a configurable cap (default 8, 1-64), and tab_id auto-resolution. It omits failure/timeout behavior, but covers substantially more than the minimum.

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?

Front-loads the action, then layers usage, related tools, and multi-agent rules in a compact block. The dense multi-agent sentence is information-rich but slightly crams several distinct behaviors together.

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?

A hover tool with no output schema and no annotations needs to explain return value and session semantics, and it does ('Returns hover confirmation', tab ownership, cap). Minor gaps around error/timeout handling keep it short of full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description restates the tab_id ownership/auto-resolve rule, which is largely redundant with the schema, but adds the concurrency-cap context; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Move the mouse over an element') and immediately names the siblings it relates to (click, get_dom_snapshot), so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' clause gives the exact scenario (reveal dropdown menus, tooltips, hover-activated content before clicking) plus the follow-up pattern via the related click tool, leaving nothing to inference.

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