hover

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 only states the core action and omits whether the tool waits for the element, whether the element must be visible/interactable, what happens on failure, or whether hover events are triggered.

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 filler words. It is appropriately minimal for a simple action and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple action with full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient, but it does not specify preconditions such as element existence or visibility, nor any return or failure behavior. The absence of annotations and output schema leaves these gaps unresolved.

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 the input schema already documents the 'by' enum, 'timeout', and 'selector'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'element', but this is acceptable given the strong schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('hover') and resource ('mouse over an element'), clearly identifying the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling interaction tools like click, double_click, right_click, and drag_and_drop.

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 hover versus alternatives. It does not mention hover-triggered menus, element visibility requirements, or situations where a click would be more appropriate.

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