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 does not mention any side effects (e.g., tooltips), visibility requirements, permission implications (despite the schema hint about the 'element' parameter being used for permission), or potential failure modes. The description is purely functional without behavioral 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 a single, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core action ('Hover over an element') and immediately follows with identification details, achieving maximum conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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 simplicity and the complete schema, the description is adequate for executing the action, but it lacks usage context (when to prefer this over alternatives) and behavioral caveats. It also does not explain the purpose of the 'element' parameter (for permission), leaving some guidance to the schema alone.

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?

The schema already fully describes both parameters (100% coverage), including the exact meaning of 'target' and 'element'. The description adds no new semantic value beyond restating the identification methods, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enrich understanding.

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 verb 'hover' and the resource 'element' precisely, and specifies the two identification methods (snapshot ref or Playwright selector). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling interaction tools like browser_click or browser_drag.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many browser_* alternatives (e.g., browser_click, browser_type). The only hint is the verb 'hover' itself, which implies the intended interaction but provides no explicit context or exclusions.

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