browser_hover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which is unusual for a hover action. The description adds no behavioral context about side effects, permissions, or what might be triggered (e.g., tooltips, navigation). Since the bar is lower with annotations, the description still fails to clarify the surprising destructive hint or disclose any consequences.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise, though it is so brief that it provides minimal value. The structure is efficient but lacks substance.

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 simple hover action, the description is technically minimal but lacks essential context. The destructiveHint=true in annotations suggests potential side effects, but the description doesn't address them. There is no mention of required page state, return behavior, or interaction with snapshots. Given the annotations and schema cover the basics, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand consequences and correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain how to obtain a target reference or what constitutes a 'unique element selector'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema handles 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 clearly states the action (hover) and the resource (element on page). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_click, browser_drag, etc., though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb is specific and the resource is clear.

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 hover vs. other interaction tools like click or drag. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a snapshot or element reference, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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