chrome-devtools-mcp-mux

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, suggesting this is a mutation tool, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It doesn't explain what 'hover over' entails (e.g., mouse movement simulation, potential UI changes), whether it requires page focus, or if it has side effects like triggering events, which is a gap given the lack of detailed annotations.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple action, with every part contributing to understanding the core functionality.

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 complexity (a UI interaction with potential side effects), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, doesn't reference the output (no output schema exists), and fails to explain the context of use among siblings. With annotations only providing readOnlyHint=false, more guidance is needed for effective agent use.

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 has 100% description coverage, fully documenting both parameters (uid and includeSnapshot). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying what 'hover over' means for the uid or how includeSnapshot affects the response. This meets the baseline score since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 over') and the target ('the provided element'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other UI interaction siblings like 'click' or 'drag', which would require mentioning it's a mouse hover action without clicking.

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 versus alternatives like 'click' or 'emulate'. It doesn't specify scenarios where hovering is appropriate (e.g., to trigger tooltips or dropdowns) or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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