desktop_scroll

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: scrolling also returns a fresh screenshot, and it explains the two coordinate reference frames. It says nothing about tick magnitude, side effects on the viewport, or what happens if x/y are omitted.

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?

A single tight sentence set with the core action and coordinate modes front-loaded and no padding. It is slightly under-informative rather than verbose, so length itself is not the problem.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves major gaps: ticks semantics, capture_max_width meaning, prerequisites, and any confirmation that it mutates the observable desktop state. It is not sufficient on its own to call this tool correctly.

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% for 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load alone. It clarifies that x and y are used together and distinguishes two coordinate frames tied to view_id, but completely ignores the 'ticks' and 'capture_max_width' parameters, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

It names a specific verb (scroll) and the resource being scrolled (the desktop view at a target), plus the coordinate systems involved, so the agent knows precisely what happens. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like desktop_move, desktop_drag, or desktop_click, which also manipulate the pointer on the desktop.

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 explains coordinate modes ('original pixels' vs 'image pixels with the current view_id') but never says when to prefer this over desktop_drag or desktop_move, nor what prerequisites (e.g. an active connection) apply. Usage is implied by the verb only.

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