browser_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return value ('Returns the updated page snapshot') and a genuine safety caveat about untrusted page content, which is valuable. However, it omits side-effect detail such as whether hovering triggers JS/timing-dependent UI, and how hover state interacts with subsequent actions.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return value, then the safety note. No filler and every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 pointer action with five optional parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return behavior, and the untrusted-content caveat. Minor gaps remain around timing/side effects, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents x, y, ref, snapshot, and screenshot, including defaults. The description adds only the ref-vs-coordinate alternative, which is already conveyed by the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('move the mouse over') and both targeting mechanisms ('element ref or x/y point'), with a concrete example outcome (hover menu or tooltip). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling actions like browser_click or browser_drag by the verb itself, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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 example 'e.g. to open a hover menu or tooltip' implies the intended usage scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no alternatives named (e.g. use browser_click if you also need to activate the element). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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