wb_hover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no actionability/visibility waits, no statement about whether the pointer position persists, no failure or timeout behavior. The only behavioral signal is the passing note that it is useful for menus and tooltips, which hints at a reveal effect but does not explain any of the mechanics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the accepted argument forms, with zero filler. There is nothing to trim.

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 tool with six parameters including two nested objects, no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about waiting semantics, return value, and post-condition state. It should at minimum say whether the hover waits for the element to be visible/stable and what the tool reports on success or failure.

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 only 50%, and the nested `target` and `expect` objects are entirely undocumented. The description's '(@e or CSS)' line largely duplicates the schema's existing selector note ('Legacy CSS or @e reference; use selector OR target') and adds nothing about `expect`, `within`, `timeoutMs`, or how `session` overrides 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?

States a specific verb ('Hover/mouseover') and resource ('an element'), and names the accepted selector syntaxes ('@e or CSS'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling action tools (wb_click, wb_dblclick, wb_drag) by the verb alone, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'Useful for menus and tooltips' implies the scenario where hover is the right choice rather than click, which is a real hint. But there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if the element isn't hoverable, and no pointer to alternatives such as wb_click for elements that need activation.

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