CloakMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action and return value but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if hovering triggers side effects (e.g., tooltips, dropdowns), whether it's idempotent, error conditions (e.g., invalid ref), or performance implications. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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: the first sentence states the purpose and return value, followed by parameter explanations. There's no wasted text, and the structure is clear. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating parameter details into the main sentence.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks context on integration with siblings (e.g., dependency on cloak_snapshot), error handling, and side effects. For a tool in a browser automation suite, this leaves gaps in usability.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds basic semantics: 'page_id: Target page ID' and 'ref: Ref ID from snapshot', explaining what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or how to obtain these values (e.g., from cloak_snapshot). This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.

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 an element') and the resource ('by ref ID'), and mentions the return value ('Returns an updated snapshot'). It distinguishes from siblings like cloak_click or cloak_press_key by specifying the hover interaction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., cloak_check might also involve hovering).

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a snapshot from cloak_snapshot first), nor does it specify scenarios where hovering is appropriate over other interactions like clicking or typing. The context is implied but not explicit.

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