scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses unit and sign conventions (negative down = up, negative right = left), which are genuine behavioral semantics, but says nothing about preconditions such as whether the target window or the point under the cursor must be focused, nor whether the pointer itself moves.

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 compact sentences with the action and target first, direction convention second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a pointer/window-interacting tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves out focus requirements and coordinate frame, which an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains that x/y select the scroll point (or the pointer when omitted) and that down/right accept signed notch counts with negative meaning the opposite direction. It omits the zero defaults and whether coordinates are absolute screen coordinates.

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 (scroll) with unit (wheel notches), target (coordinates or pointer), and axis semantics. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like mouse_move, click, and drag, which move or activate rather than scroll.

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?

'At (x, y) or the pointer' implies the two usage modes (explicit coordinates vs. current cursor position) but never says when to prefer one or addresses any alternative tool for reaching content (e.g., focus_window). Usage is inferable but not guided.

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