browser_hover

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

Although annotations are absent, the description explains the tool's behavior (hover triggers effects) and discloses output format, error types, and example. It does not specify certain details like whether the hover is persistent, but for a simple hover action, this is sufficient.

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 very concise with a single English sentence followed by structured bullet points in Chinese. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently uses bullet points for details. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers output format, errors, and an example. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly. It could optionally mention the type of hover event, but not required.

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?

There is only one parameter (selector) with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds the same description as the schema for the parameter but provides additional context like errors and output. No extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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 is for hovering over a DOM element by CSS selector to trigger hover effects, tooltips, and dropdown menus. It is distinct from sibling tools like browser_click, browser_type, etc., as it performs a hover action.

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 Chinese section explicitly lists four scenarios when to use this tool, such as testing submenu expansion and verifying tooltip content. It provides clear context and appropriate use cases, though it does not list alternatives or when not to use.

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