a11y-toolkit: Hover dismissibility (1.4.13)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it requires local Playwright, which is critical for the agent to know before calling. It also implies the tool will perform browser interactions (hover) but does not detail potential side effects or warnings beyond the Playwright dependency; however, given the strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 concise and front-loaded with the criterion and ability. It efficiently uses a dash to introduce scope and alternatives without wasting words. The only minor issue is that it crams several pieces of information into one long sentence, but it remains readable.

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's moderate complexity, the description covers what it does, when to use it, prerequisites, and scope. The output schema is absent, but the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a report of flagged tooltips). Since it flags issues, a brief note on output format would improve completeness, but the current info is largely sufficient.

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 each parameter is documented. The description adds context that the tool runs a browser test requiring local Playwright, which helps agents understand prerequisites. It does not deeply explain each parameter, but the schema covers it, so the baseline of 3 is elevated by the extra environment context.

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's purpose: it finds tooltip/overlay candidates, hovers each, and tests whether Escape dismisses the result, flagging non-dismissible tooltips. It identifies a specific accessibility criterion (1.4.13) and distinguishes itself from siblings by stating its scope (tooltips only) and naming the full audit (a11y_audit_dom) and keyboard traps (a11y_keyboard).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for tooltip hover dismissibility testing) and what it is not for (full audit, keyboard traps), naming the alternatives directly. It also includes a hard prerequisite: 'Requires local Playwright.' This gives the agent clear guidance on invocation conditions.

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