browser_hover

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, signaling potential side effects, but the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., that hovering may trigger JavaScript events or alter page state). No extra value beyond the annotations is provided, and no contradiction exists.

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 unnecessary words. 'Hover over element on page' is appropriately sized for a simple action, and every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the annotation destructiveHint: true suggests potential negative side effects that are not explained. The description omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a page snapshot), potential effects, or relationship to other tools, leaving the context incomplete for an agent.

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 input schema fully covers both parameters (target and element) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific insights, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like browser_click or browser_drag. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 other browser interaction tools such as browser_click or browser_drag. The description simply states the action without providing context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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