browser_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'hover' without detailing effects, whether it waits for actionability, failure behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no prior 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 extremely short and free of fluff, which is efficient, but it does not provide any structured information or elaboration. It is concise to the point of being sparse, rather than optimally packaged.

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 simple action but the presence of many sibling tools and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It lacks guidance on usage context, behavioral expectations, and how it differs from similar actions, making it inadequate for fully informed tool selection.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (ref, element, _agent_id), including a detailed explanation for _agent_id. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 '悬停在元素上' clearly states the action (hover) and the target (element), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_click by the specific verb, though it lacks additional scope or context.

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 this tool versus alternatives such as browser_click or browser_drag. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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