Computer Scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only states mechanics. It does not disclose whether scrolling affects the focused window, whether coordinates are screen-relative, what side effects occur, or what constraints apply.

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 front-loaded, compact, and contains no wasted text. It states the action first and then the key parameter semantics in a single efficient sentence.

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 simple coordinate-based scroll tool with an output schema, the essential call mechanics are present. However, with no annotations and no schema property descriptions, the missing coordinate frame and side-effect context leave meaningful gaps.

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 gives meaning to all four parameters: x/y as the scroll location, direction with explicit allowed values, and amount in wheel notches, though it omits the coordinate reference frame and defaults.

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 states a specific action, 'Scroll at (x, y)', and names the direction and amount semantics. It clearly identifies a scrolling operation, distinguishing it from click/type/drag siblings by verb, though it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use scrolling versus other computer interaction tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool name and action phrase.

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