browser_hover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the hover action and its effects (triggering UI states), but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this requires the element to be visible, if it waits for hover effects to complete, error handling, or performance implications. This is a significant gap for a browser interaction tool.

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 front-loads the core action ('hover over an element') and immediately explains the purpose ('to trigger tooltips, dropdown menus, or hover states'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity of browser interactions and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like what happens after hovering (e.g., does it return success/failure, wait for effects), error cases (e.g., if element not found), or integration with sibling tools. This leaves gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('ref' and 'selector') clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as usage examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb 'hover over' and the resource 'an element', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'browser_click' by focusing on hover interactions rather than clicks, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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 mentions triggering tooltips, dropdown menus, or hover states, which implies usage for UI interactions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_click' or 'browser_press_key'. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated, leaving the agent to infer context.

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