hover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden, but it explains nothing about behavior — whether the hover is temporary, whether it triggers tooltips/menus, whether the page scroll is modified, or whether hover state affects subsequent interactions. With zero annotation coverage and no behavioral context, this is a major gap.

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 very short — nearly a one-liner — which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently composed. The code-example style packs minimal information into the space, but the lack of elaboration outweighs the brevity benefit.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It neither explains the parameters, the return behavior, nor the interaction semantics. Compare this to sibling interaction tools like click_selector and hover_index, which presumably clarify their behavior.

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%, and the only hint is the "sel" parameter in the code example, which isn't explained as accepting a selector string. The second parameter (tab) is entirely undocumented in both description and schema. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 "hover(".menu") — CSS 选择器悬停" is mostly a code example plus a Chinese phrase meaning "CSS selector hover." It conveys the tool hovers over an element identified by a CSS selector, but the purpose is under-specified — no verb+resource clarity, no mention that it moves the mouse to an element's position. It reads more like a usage snippet than a description.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include hover_index, click_selector, and find_text, which suggest alternative interaction paths, but the description gives no distinction between hovering by selector vs by index or when hovering is appropriate (e.g., to trigger tooltips/dropdowns before clicking).

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