browser_hover

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It states the core action (hovering) and the purpose (revealing hover-rendered UI), but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., element visibility), or whether it triggers events. The transparency is adequate for a simple hover but lacks depth.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a relevant use case. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or filler. It is a model of concise writing.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the core function and a common use case without needing to enumerate return values. It could mention that the element should exist or be interactive, but this is not critical for a straightforward hover action.

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 has a single parameter 'selector' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful context by specifying it is a 'CSS selector,' which clarifies the expected format. However, it does not go further to explain requirements like uniqueness or visibility, so the added value is moderate but not comprehensive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Hover over') and resource ('an element by CSS selector'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click and browser_type. It immediately conveys the action and target, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides clear context by stating it is 'Useful for menus and tooltips rendered on hover,' which indicates when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case provided is sufficient for an agent to differentiate it from other browser interaction tools.

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