browser_hover

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Hover over an element' with no mention of effects (e.g., triggering hover events, non-destructive nature, potential failures if element not found). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 short sentence, which is concise. For a tool with one parameter, this is efficient. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness (e.g., 'Hover over an element on the page using a reference from a snapshot').

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It conveys the basic action but lacks context about what happens after hovering, whether it returns anything, or if it waits for any events. An agent might need this context for correct sequencing.

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% (the single 'ref' parameter is described as 'Element reference from snapshot'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter, but the description does not enhance 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 'Hover over an element' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click and browser_type, which perform different actions. However, it could be slightly more precise by specifying the context (browser page) but the tool name implies it.

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 guidance is provided on when to use hover versus alternative tools like click or type. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a snapshot first) or conditions that might make hovering appropriate. The description is purely a statement of action without usage context.

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