chrome_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Chrome pointer movement,' which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects like triggering hover events, whether the pointer actually moves, focusing behavior, or what happens if the target is not found.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the action, the target, the locator modes, and the mechanism.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unstated. An agent still needs to infer target tab selection, default background behavior, and what a successful hover returns or signals.

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 50%, and the description partially compensates by explaining that uid, selector, and x/y are alternative targeting mechanisms. However, it does not clarify whether one is required, whether they are mutually exclusive, or how they interact with targetId/urlIncludes/titleIncludes.

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 over') and resource ('element'), and clearly states the three supported input mechanisms: uid, selector, and x/y. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like chrome_click and chrome_type.

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 does not say when to prefer hover over click, tap, or other interactions, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives. It tells what the tool does, but not when it should be used in relation to its siblings.

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