browser_hover

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is provided outside the description. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as the fact that hovering may trigger UI state changes without clicking, but it does not contradict the 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 efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It is compact but not structured enough to convey usage context; still, for a simple action primitive, the brevity is appropriate.

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 a one-action tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no guidance on when hover is the right sibling tool, the description is slightly incomplete for an agent deciding among many browser interaction tools.

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 target and element both already described in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema to convey semantics.

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 states a clear verb ('hover') and a resource ('element on page'), which distinguishes it from siblings like click, type, and drag. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools, but the action is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use hover versus alternatives such as click, drop, or press_key. There is no mention of use cases like revealing tooltips or hover menus, nor any exclusions.

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