sleeper_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not whether the hover persists, whether it waits for the element, whether it scrolls into view, whether it triggers dependent UI (menus/tooltips), or whether it fails on invisible elements. A single two-word fragment leaves a mutation-ish interaction completely opaque.

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?

Two words with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded action context, no scope statement, and nothing an agent can act on beyond the name.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, 33% schema coverage, and a dense sibling ecosystem of ~50 browser tools. For an interaction tool in that context, the description is far too thin to let an agent pick it correctly over sleeper_click, sleeper_focus, or sleeper_drag.

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 33% (only 'profile' is documented, and that documentation lives in the schema, not the description). The description adds no meaning for 'selector' or 'tab', so two of three parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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?

"Mouseover element" restates the tool name rather than describing the operation in a distinguishing way. It does convey hover semantics, but there is no differentiation from siblings like sleeper_click, sleeper_focus, or sleeper_drag, and 'element' is left undefined (selector? text? coordinates?).

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as sleeper_click or sleeper_focus, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., element must exist or be scrolled into view). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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