browser_hoverReveal hidden hover content—menus, captions, or tooltips—by hovering over a chosen page element, then use browser_elements to inspect and click what appears.
Hover over an element (id from browser_elements) to show what appears on hover: menus, captions, tooltips. Then call browser_elements to see and click what appeared.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Element id like e12, or its visible text / image description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the observable effect of hovering and the necessary follow-up re-inspection step, which is genuinely behavioral context. It omits timing concerns (hover menus may need a wait before they render), whether hover state persists, and failure behavior when hover reveals nothing.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its purpose, followed by the required next step. Every clause earns its place, though naming browser_elements twice is slightly repetitive for such a short description.
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 one-parameter interaction tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, why, and the follow-through workflow. Only the timing/robustness caveats are missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.
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% for the single target parameter, so the schema already documents both the id format (e12) and the text/image-description fallback. The description only adds the provenance of the id ('from browser_elements'), which is marginal beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (hover) and resource (element) and immediately distinguishes itself from click-style siblings by declaring what hovering reveals: menus, captions, tooltips. An agent can tell it apart from browser_click or browser_elements without opening any schema.
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?
Provides a clear workflow context - hover to expose hidden UI, then call browser_elements to see and click what appeared. It implies the 'when' (revealing hover-gated menus) without explicitly stating when not to use it or naming a competing sibling as an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.