Hover mouse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a mutating action with side effects. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond a simple hover action—like what happens if the element is not found, or if hovering triggers JavaScript events. Given the annotations, a 3 is fair since the description doesn't contradict them but also doesn't enrich them.

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 very short (4 words), front-loading the action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail. For a 3-parameter tool, this is arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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 complexity (3 params, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error states, or how the parameters map to behavior. The sibling tools suggest a browser automation context, but the description fails to leverage that for clarity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. But it only explains the overall action, not the two parameters (target and element). It fails to clarify what 'target' and 'element' mean individually (e.g., target might be a selector, element might be an index). The default null for element is also unexplained.

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 element on page' uses a specific verb ('hover') and resource (element on page), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_click, browser_drop, or browser_drag. However, it could be slightly more specific about whether it requires a CSS selector or XPath for the target.

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 vs alternatives. It doesn't explain that hovering is often a prerequisite for dropdowns or tooltips, nor does it mention that browser_click or browser_fill_form might be better for direct interaction. No exclusions or context are given.

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