scroll

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that scrolling can target either an element or the page, but does not explain the non-obvious readOnlyHint=false flag, what happens at scroll boundaries, or any timing considerations.

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 well-formed sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the parameter surface, but within the conciseness dimension it reads cleanly.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and near-zero schema descriptions, the agent lacks guidance on parameter interactions (ref/selector/targetId), which target is scrolled by default, and delta units. The description is not sufficient to call this tool correctly in ambiguous cases.

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 17% (just targetId), yet the description only loosely maps to the parameters via 'pixel delta' (deltaX/deltaY) and 'element or page'. It says nothing about ref vs selector vs targetId selection, snapshotId semantics, or defaults, leaving most of the 6 parameters undocumented.

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 verb (scroll), the resource (an element or the selected Typora page), and the mechanism (a pixel delta), which makes it clearly distinct from siblings like click, type, or press_key. It does not explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The description only implies the obvious 'scroll to change the viewport', which an agent could infer from the name alone.

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