browser_hover

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only operation with open-world implications, the description clarifies this is a mouse interaction that simulates user behavior. It doesn't contradict annotations but provides specific behavioral context about what 'hover' means in a browser automation context.

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 extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the core action and target without any unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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 moderate complexity (interactive browser action with destructive potential) and complete schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain what happens after hovering (e.g., does it wait for page changes? what's the return value?). The annotations help but don't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral details in the description.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters ('element' and 'ref'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameter usage, purpose, or relationships beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 over') and target ('element on page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from obvious siblings like 'browser_click' by specifying a different interaction type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from more subtle siblings like 'browser_wait_for' which might also involve element interaction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when hovering is appropriate (e.g., to trigger dropdowns or tooltips) versus when clicking or other interactions are needed, nor does it reference any sibling tools as alternatives or complementary actions.

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