browser_hover

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which suggest the tool may have side effects, but the description provides no behavioral context beyond the simple action of hovering. It does not explain what happens on hover (e.g., triggering tooltips, menus, or state changes), nor does it address the potentially destructive nature implied by the annotations. The description adds no value beyond the structured data.

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 filler words. It is efficient and easy to read, fitting the simplicity of the tool. However, it is perhaps too terse, omitting usage context that could be included without much cost.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of a destructiveHint, the description is too sparse to be fully useful. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it integrates with page snapshots, or how the permission mechanism works. The context signals show a parameter count of 2 and no output schema, so the description must carry more explanatory weight, but it only provides a minimal action statement.

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 100%, with both 'target' and 'element' having clear definitions. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters, but it doesn't need to since the schema already provides sufficient detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 over element on page' clearly states the action (hover) and the target (element on page). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like browser_click or browser_mouse_move_click, though it does not explicitly call out the differences. The verb is precise 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_mouse_move_click or browser_click. The description only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be chosen, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves the agent to 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.