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 and does little beyond the obvious. It does not disclose whether hovering dispatches real mouseover events, whether the hover state persists, what happens when the selector matches nothing or multiple elements, or whether it waits for the element to be actionable.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the argument list is compact with zero redundancy. The 'Args:' block is slightly mechanical but every line carries needed information given the undocumented schema.

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?

For a simple single-action tool with no output schema, the definition covers the what and the parameters adequately. It is still missing failure behavior and event semantics, which matter for a hover that is often used to trigger menus or tooltips.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, and it documents both: selector as a CSS selector, and tab_id as optional with a default of the active tab. It does not clarify selector-multiple-match behavior or valid tab_id values, but it compensates well for the empty schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Hover over an element on the page'), which is unambiguous and distinct from most siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related browser_click, browser_focus, or browser_blur, but the action itself is clear enough to select correctly.

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 hover versus when a click or focus is more appropriate, nor any mention of prerequisites (element must exist, page must be loaded). The only contextual hint is the tab_id default, which is a parameter detail rather than usage guidance.

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