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 only says 'Hover an element' without explaining side effects, prerequisite visibility, scroll-into-view behavior, timing, or how failures are reported. The action type is obvious from the name, but the behavioral consequences are undisclosed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and the two targeting mechanisms are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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 two optional string parameters and no output schema, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. The description tells the agent what action to perform and how to specify the element, but not when to prefer one parameter over the other or what observable behavior to expect. The lack of annotations and schema descriptions leaves important context uncovered.

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 0%, and the two parameters have no descriptions. The description partially compensates by saying the tool accepts 'a snapshot ref or a selector,' which clarifies that ref and selector are alternative ways to target an element. However, it does not define what a snapshot ref looks like, how to format a selector, or what happens if both are 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 states the specific verb 'hover' with the resource 'element,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_click, browser_type, and browser_drag. Adding that it accepts a snapshot ref or selector further disambiguates its purpose. This is a one-sentence, fully clear purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus browser_click or other interaction tools, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The phrase 'Accepts a snapshot ref or a selector' is input guidance, not usage-direction. The agent is left to infer appropriate hover scenarios.

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