browser_hover

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'hover' without explaining whether the action triggers side effects (tooltips, hover styles), is reversible, or requires specific element states (visible, enabled). No constraints or side effects are mentioned.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the core action and constraints. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with a complex locator schema and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain hover behavior, return values (if any), failure scenarios, or how the locator is used. The complex nested locator object would benefit from usage examples or parameter guidance.

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 50% (locator has a helpful description about being a semantic accessibility-tree locator; collaboration_id has none). The tool-level description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since coverage is not low, but the description does not compensate for the missing collaboration_id guidance.

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 clearly states the action ('hover') and the target ('one uniquely identified semantic element in an explicitly shared tab'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes browser_hover from sibling tools like browser_click, browser_focus, and browser_scroll.

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 interaction methods (click, focus) or what preconditions must be met (e.g., element visibility). The description does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for related tasks.

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