playwright_hover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., triggering hover states, tooltips, or animations), error conditions (e.g., if selector not found), or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with dynamic page elements.

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, efficient sentence ('Hover an element on the page') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs a UI interaction. It doesn't explain what happens after hovering (e.g., does it wait for effects, return success/failure, or trigger events?), leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively in complex scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'selector' parameter clearly documented as a CSS selector. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid selectors or tips for targeting elements. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Hover an element on the page' clearly states the action (hover) and target (element on page), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like playwright_click or playwright_select, which also interact with page elements, leaving some ambiguity about when to use hover versus other interactions.

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 this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like playwright_click, playwright_fill, and playwright_select available, there's no indication of whether hovering is for triggering UI effects, inspecting elements, or other purposes, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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