browser_hover

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description never explains what that means for a hover — e.g., that hovering can open menus, trigger tooltips, or change page state. With annotations carrying the safety flags, the description should still add context about side effects, but it adds none.

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?

Five words, front-loaded with the action and object, with zero padding. It is efficient, though the minimalism borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

The tool is simple and its parameters are fully documented in the schema, so an agent can mechanically invoke it. Still missing are any note about side effects of hovering and how the target reference should be sourced, which matters for a tool flagged as destructive and open-world.

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%, so the 'target', 'element', and 'session' parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline case when the schema does all the work.

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 gives a specific verb (hover) and resource (element on page), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from closely related siblings like browser_click, browser_drag, or browser_find, all of which also target elements from a page snapshot.

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 use hover versus click, drag, or find, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a fresh snapshot to obtain a target reference. The agent must infer everything about selection context from the name alone.

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