browser_hover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'hover over element' but does not explain whether this triggers JavaScript events, whether it's a read-only operation, or what the result/return value is. The agent cannot assess side effects or requirements.

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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It's appropriately brief for a simple action, though extremely terse. It doesn't waste words but also provides minimal 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally complete, but it lacks important context such as how to obtain the 'ref' from a snapshot, whether hover may cause page state changes, or typical use cases. The absence of an output schema and annotations leaves gaps that the description does not fill.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with explicit descriptions for 'ref' and 'element'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'hover' and identifies the resource as 'element on page', making the core action clear. However, it doesn't specify how the element is selected or what distinguishes this from other interaction tools beyond the action itself, so it's adequate but not particularly informative.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_click or browser_type. There is no mention of hover being useful for revealing tooltips or prerequisite for other actions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb alone.

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