Browser MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action without any details on effects, prerequisites (e.g., requires a loaded page), side effects, or response behavior. This is inadequate for a tool that interacts with a browser, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the core action, which is efficient. However, the parenthetical reference to 'browser_docs' adds minimal value without context, slightly reducing conciseness. Overall, it is appropriately sized with little waste.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after hovering (e.g., triggers events, returns success/failure) or any dependencies, making it insufficient for safe and effective use in a browser automation context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'selector' parameter fully documented as a 'Playwright selector for the element'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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?

The description 'Hover over an element' clearly states the action (hover) and target (an element), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'browser_mouse_move' or 'browser_focus', which might have overlapping functionality, leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 references 'browser_docs' for more information, but this is not explicit usage advice. Without clear context or exclusions, the agent lacks direction on appropriate scenarios for hovering.

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