MouseHover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that this is a synthetic simulation and specifies the dispatched mouse events, giving the agent a solid understanding of what happens during invocation. It stops short of describing failure behavior or limitations of synthetic events, but the essential actions are disclosed.

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 exactly one sentence, front-loads the core action, and immediately follows with the key event detail and purpose. Every word contributes value, and there is no wasted repetition of schema information.

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 that the schema covers all parameters and the tool has no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the action, the events fired, and the intended effect. It could add more context about adjacent tool behavior, but for a simple hover action the essential operating context is present.

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% coverage and already documents all six parameters, including coordinate relativity, optional notebook targeting, label intent, and timeout. The description adds limited semantic value beyond calling the action a 'hover at a position,' so 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Simulate mouse hover at a position' and names the exact events dispatched. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like MouseClick, MouseDrag, and MouseWheel, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 communicates the intended use case: triggering hover states and tooltips. It implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly name an alternative such as MouseClick for click actions.

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