hover

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false signals this is not a pure read operation, yet the description does not explain what hovering changes (tooltip, hover menu, CSS state) or whether the call waits for a hover duration. It adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a three-parameter interaction tool. It does front-load the verb and target, which is the one structural strength.

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?

The schema covers all parameters and no output schema exists, so parameter-level needs are met, but the description omits what an agent should expect from a hover action and how includeSnapshot affects the response. For an interaction tool with only a readOnlyHint=false annotation, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 uid, pageId, and includeSnapshot are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase "provided element" only loosely gestures at uid and adds no format or identification guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ("Hover") and the resource it acts on ("the provided element"), so an agent can tell it performs a mouse-hover interaction rather than a click or drag. However, it includes no differentiation from siblings like click or drag, which also target elements.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use hover versus click, drag, or evaluate_script. The implied use case (revealing hover-dependent UI) is left entirely to inference, with no exclusions or conditions stated.

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