desktop_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses non-obvious behavior: it automatically chooses independent vs. foreground pointer input and validates before acting. The instruction to read resulting state also gives the agent a useful post-condition expectation. It does not describe every possible failure or side effect, but for a scrolling action it communicates the key behavioral surprise.

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 carry the essential action, range, validation behavior, and a follow-up instruction. There is no filler, and the core scroll operation is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so more detail would be justified. The description gives a usable mental model, but open questions remain around validation failure, coordinate space, and what 'read resulting state' means concretely. Despite this, it is neither misleading nor severely gapped for a simple scroll action.

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. It adds meaning to 'ticks' by bounding it to 1–20 and ties x/y to 'a point in the observed target,' which helps explain window_id/snapshot_id usage. However, it does not clarify the coordinate frame, direction semantics, or the relationship between the snapshot and window beyond the phrase 'observed target.'

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 names a specific action—scroll—and specifies the operand (1–20 wheel ticks at a point in the observed target), making it immediately distinct from sibling pointer tools like desktop_click, desktop_hover, or desktop_drag. The wording is not a tautology and conveys both the operation and its scope.

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?

It clearly situates the tool's use case: scroll inside an observed target after validation, then read resulting state to confirm. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the exclusions needed for full guidance.

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