browser_hover

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral aspects. It only says 'mouse hover' without explaining what happens: whether it moves to the element center, triggers hover effects, requires visibility, or what occurs if the selector matches nothing. No side effects or limitations are mentioned, leaving the agent entirely uninformed.

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 word, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. While it is short, it does not earn its place because it communicates no more than the tool name itself. It lacks the structural elements (usage, parameters, examples) needed to be minimally viable.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain what the parameter is and how the hover action is performed. This description provides none of that context, making it impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly without external knowledge. It is completely inadequate.

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 schema lists a single parameter 'selector' with no description, and the tool description provides zero explanation of what this selector should represent (CSS selector, XPath, etc.). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by adding any meaning to the parameter.

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 '鼠标悬停' (mouse hover) essentially restates the tool name without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish what this tool does differently from sibling tools like browser_mouse_move or browser_hover itself. The verb is clear but the resource and scope are undefined.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_mouse_move or browser_click. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description provides no context to help an agent decide between hovering and other mouse actions.

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