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 states the action and example, but does not explain important traits such as whether the hover is simulated, whether it waits for element visibility, potential side effects beyond revealing UI, or error behavior when the element is not found. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, targeting methods, and an example. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple hover action with no output schema and low complexity, the description covers the core essentials: what it does, how to specify the element, and a typical use scenario. It falls short on describing failure behavior and parameter interaction, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke the tool.

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 provides only parameter types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explicitly stating 'by CSS selector or snapshot ref', which maps directly to the 'selector' and 'ref' parameters and gives them semantic meaning. However, it does not clarify whether they are mutually exclusive, if one is preferred, or whether both can be provided.

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' with specific targeting methods (CSS selector or snapshot ref) and a concrete example ('to open a dropdown menu'). This verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click (click vs. hover) and browser_fill (hover vs. form input).

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 a use case ('e.g. to open a dropdown menu') that implies when to use hover, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like browser_click, nor does it state when not to use hover. Usage guidance is implied rather than directly articulated.

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