browser_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing important behavioral traits such as the need for a prior snapshot, whether the hover triggers side effects like tooltips, or any prerequisites. The schema's ref description covers some mechanics, but the main description is minimal.

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 succinct (4 words) and directly to the point, which is appropriate for a simple tool. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 tool is relatively simple with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it omits workflow context, such as the need for a prior snapshot and the fact that hovering may reveal dynamic content. The schema partly compensates, making the description minimally complete but lacking contextual depth.

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%, with detailed descriptions for both 'ref' and 'element' parameters. The description 'Hover over an element' adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 an element' clearly states the specific verb (hover) and resource (element). It distinguishes the tool from sibling actions like browser_click or browser_double_click by its unique action, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives.

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 provided on when to use hover versus clicking, dragging, or other element interactions. The description gives no context about use cases like tooltips, drop-down menus, or hover-triggered content, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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