browser_hover

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. It does not mention that hovering may trigger DOM events, requires a visible element, or has any side effects. With zero behavioral context, the agent cannot anticipate tool behavior.

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 uninformative phrase. While concise, it does not earn its place by adding value; it merely repeats the name. It lacks structure or a leading action verb beyond the tautological 'Hover element'.

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 tool with many siblings, this description is severely incomplete. It gives no guidance on prerequisites, return behavior, or how it differs from similar actions. An agent cannot determine when to call this tool correctly without external 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'session' and 'selector' are described). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra meaning is provided, and there is no contradiction.

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 element' essentially restates the tool name 'browser_hover' and adds only the generic resource 'element'. It gives no detail about what hovering does (e.g., triggering CSS :hover events) and does not distinguish this from siblings like browser_click or browser_fill. This borders on tautology, earning a 2 rather than a 3.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context such as 'use this to trigger hover styles' or 'use click instead to interact'. An agent receives no help in selecting this tool over the many sibling browser tools.

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