browser_hover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the mechanical action and does not explain side effects (DOM/CSS state changes, whether a subsequent click is needed), timing/wait requirements, or that it returns nothing useful.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no redundant or filler text. Nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive action with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. It could note that hover effects are transient and typically require a follow-up action, but the gap is minor.

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%: both selector and session_id are fully documented in the schema, including that session_id comes from browser_navigate. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('move the mouse cursor over an element') plus the intended effect ('trigger hover effects'), which distinguishes it in practice from browser_click, browser_focus, and browser_drag. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'to trigger hover effects' hints at intent, but there is no guidance on when to prefer hover over siblings like browser_click or browser_focus, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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