hover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Hover over' implies a non-destructive interaction that simulates mouse movement, but the description doesn't clarify what happens after hovering (e.g., whether it waits for hover effects to complete, what visual feedback occurs, or if it triggers JavaScript events). For a browser interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and target. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of browser interaction tools and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes successful hovering, what errors might occur (e.g., element not found), what visual or state changes to expect, or how this interacts with other browser tools. For a tool that simulates user interactions, more context about behavior and outcomes is needed.

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% with the single parameter 'selector' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 action ('hover over') and target ('an element on the page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'click' or 'select' by focusing on hover interactions rather than clicks or selections. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible sibling interactions beyond the basic verb distinction.

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. It doesn't mention when hovering is appropriate (e.g., for triggering dropdowns, tooltips, or hover states) versus when to use 'click' or other interaction tools. There's no discussion of prerequisites, timing considerations, or alternative approaches for similar outcomes.

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