browser_hover

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, meaning the tool may cause side effects. However, the description simply says 'Hover over element' without explaining potential behavioral impacts (e.g., triggering hover events, loading resources, or changing page state). It adds no context beyond what the annotations already state, and fails to clarify why the tool is classified as destructive.

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 five-word sentence, which is very concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices crucial information about usage and behavior. While not verbose, it under-specifies for a tool with non-trivial annotations.

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 openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true annotations, the agent needs to understand the tool's side effects and appropriate usage. The description provides almost none of this context. It does not mention what happens after hover (e.g., whether it returns results, waits for effects, or requires interaction permission). The lack of an output schema further increases the need for descriptive context, which is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage context for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already 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 element on page' uses a clear verb+resource pattern, unambiguously stating the tool's action. However, among many sibling interaction tools (e.g., browser_click, browser_mouse_move_xy), it does not differentiate what 'hover' entails versus moving the mouse or clicking. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to prefer hover over alternatives like click, mouse_move_xy, or drag. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., element visibility, scroll-into-view) or when not to use this tool. The agent receives no help in tool selection.

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