悬停页面元素

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that events are synthetic (派发 mouseover/mouseenter) and that scrollIntoView happens first, both non-obvious behaviors an agent needs. It does not mention failure/timeout behavior, so it is not perfect.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action, event behavior, use case, and side effect. Every phrase contributes meaning and there is no redundant wording.

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 tool with one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives purpose, mechanism, and the critical scrollIntoView side effect. It omits return-value or post-hover waiting details, but those are not essential for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents selector, pageId, and note. The description adds little beyond framing selector as the lookup mechanism, which is below the threshold for extra credit but still consistent with schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find an element via CSS selector and dispatch mouseover/mouseenter events. It also names the intended effect (triggering menus/tooltips), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like click, focus, and scroll_to.

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 concrete use cases—'可触发菜单、tooltip 等悬停行为'—so an agent can infer when hover is the right tool. It does not explicitly contrast with click or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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