Hover over page element

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that BrowserMesh preserves same-session accepted order, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., triggering JavaScript events, changing page state) beyond the hover action. With annotations providing some safety profile, the description adds some value but could be more transparent about what happens after hover.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action. It includes a practical hint about same-session order. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter guidance. Overall, it's efficient.

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 the input schema (nested locator definitions, frame chains, multiple strategies) and the lack of schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how to specify iframe contexts, the role-based locator structure, or the meaning of 'ref'. The output schema exists but the description doesn't clarify what the tool returns. For a tool with such a complex schema, the description should provide more 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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'semantic or CSS locator' and 'explicitly addressed page', which hints at locator and pageId parameters, but it doesn't explain the 'ref' parameter, 'timeoutMs', or the 'frame' structure. The schema is complex with nested definitions, and the description provides minimal guidance on how to construct the locator object. This is a significant gap.

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 tool's purpose: moving the pointer over a semantic or CSS locator on an explicitly addressed page. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_click and browser_focus by specifying the hover action and its use case (revealing hover-driven controls). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other hover-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 context on when to use the tool: 'Use this to reveal hover-driven controls or state before inspecting or interacting.' It implies usage before other actions, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling list includes browser_click, browser_focus, etc., but no explicit comparison is made. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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