browser_hover

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, stating the hover action but not detailing effects like potential UI changes or timing considerations. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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, direct sentence ('Hover over element on page') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (simple hover action), no output schema, and rich annotations covering safety and world state, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on expected outcomes (e.g., UI feedback) or prerequisites (e.g., needing a page snapshot from browser_snapshot), leaving some contextual gaps.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (element as human-readable description, ref as exact target reference). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action (hover) and target (element on page). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_click (click action) and browser_type (typing action) by specifying the hover interaction, which is a distinct browser manipulation operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where hovering is appropriate (e.g., triggering dropdowns, tooltips) versus when clicking or other interactions are needed, nor does it reference sibling tools like browser_click for comparison.

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