browser_hover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool targets elements via CSS selector or snapshot reference and performs a hover action, which is the core behavior. However, it does not mention any side effects, waiting behavior, or failure modes. For a simple hover tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence that includes the action, targeting methods, and an example. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or structuring issues.

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, no annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what it does and how to specify elements. It lacks details about return values or error handling, but for a hover action this is a minor gap.

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 schema has zero description coverage, but the description explains that 'ref' refers to a snapshot reference and 'selector' refers to a CSS selector. This adds meaning beyond the raw parameter names. It does not detail precedence or constraints, so it is moderate but helpful.

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 clearly states the action ('Hover the mouse over an element') and the two targeting methods ('by CSS selector or snapshot ref'). This distinguishes it from siblings like browser_click or browser_fill. The example 'e.g. to open a dropdown menu' reinforces its specific purpose.

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 an example use case ('to open a dropdown menu') which implies when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. This is more than no guidance but less than explicit differentiation, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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