hover

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether the element is scrolled into view first, whether hover state persists, whether events are dispatched, or how failures are reported. The only implicit behavior is that a mouse-over interaction occurs, which is minimal.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter at full schema coverage, so the bar is modest. Still, an agent gets no guidance on return/error behavior, hover timing, or its relationship to sibling mouse tools, leaving gaps that a single extra clause could have closed.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("CSS selector"), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, matching, or targeting semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a fully covered parameter.

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?

"Hover over an element" simply restates the tool name plus its object; it adds no scope, target type, or distinguishing detail beyond what the name already conveys. It is not misleading, but it is essentially a tautology against the title.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the many sibling interaction tools (notably mouseMove, mouseDown/Up, or click). No prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer usage entirely.

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