ruyi_human_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: native wheel action, single direction, small steps, random intervals, and the fact that it does not locate elements or automatically scroll back. It does not, however, discuss other potential behaviors such as interaction with page end or interruption, leaving some gap.

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 extremely compact, consisting of just two sentences that pack behavior, limitations, and usage. Every phrase adds value with no redundant content.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and limitations well, but it omits clarifications for parameter semantics like pageIdx and fails to mention what happens at the end of the page. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but has clear 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?

The description does not reference any of the seven parameters, and the schema leaves pageIdx undescribed and direction without a description (though the enum is self-explanatory). With 71% schema coverage, the lack of compensation in the description leaves ambiguity for two parameters, especially pageIdx.

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 specifies a concrete action: it uses Firefox's native wheel action to scroll in one direction with small steps and random intervals. It distinguishes itself from sibling human-interaction tools (move, drag, click, input) by focusing specifically on scrolling and explicitly noting it does not locate elements or auto-scroll back.

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 states suitable scenarios ('reading-style scrolling' and 'pagination buttons gradually entering the viewport') and gives an exclusion by saying it will not locate elements or auto-roll back. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly, so it lacks the explicit alternatives reference of the highest score.

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