browser_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the action ('hover') and the source of the target, but it does not disclose timeout behavior, whether the element is scrolled into view, what happens on failure, or whether any hover-driven UI changes are expected.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and the accepted locator sources.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple hover action, but it omits timeout semantics, iframe behavior details (though the schema covers frameSelector), and failure or waiting behavior. Given no annotations and no output schema, some operational context is left to inference.

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 descriptions already cover selector, ref, and frameSelector in detail; the tool description largely restates the selector/ref concept. With 75% schema coverage, the description adds no significant parameter semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 names a specific action ('Hover') and a clear resource ('an element'), plus the two accepted locator forms (CSS selector or aria ref from browser_snapshot). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling interaction tools like browser_click or browser_fill.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to hover over an element) and notes the locator sources, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide exclusions. It does not mention the exactly-one-of-selector/ref constraint, though that is covered in the schema.

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