browser_hover

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add context. It adds none – no disclosure of what hover triggers, what state changes or reveals elements, or whether a wait/follow-up is needed. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral information.

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 single phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no wasted text, yet also not enough substance to earn a higher score.

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?

For an interactive page tool with no output schema and annotations that oddly flag it as destructive, the description is too thin: it omits what hovering accomplishes, whether it triggers navigation or state change, and any prerequisites for the ref. An agent can call it mechanically but lacks the context to know when it is appropriate.

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%, so ref, element, and sessionId are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (hover) and resource (element on page), so an agent can identify the action. It does not distinguish this from siblings like browser_click or browser_drag, leaving the differentiation to the agent to infer.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when hovering is required (e.g. to reveal menus or tooltips), and no reference to alternatives such as browser_click. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over the other 24 browser/session tools.

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