mouse_hscroll

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the sign convention (positive means right), which is real behavioral information, but it says nothing about how far one click scrolls, whether the pointer position matters, or what happens at the -120/120 limits.

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 short sentence with the direction semantics front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the unit/focus detail noted above.

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?

This is a one-parameter, no-output tool, so little is required, and the description covers the core action and sign. Missing are magnitude per click and any pointer/focus prerequisite, which an agent would need to predict the effect.

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 explain 'clicks' itself. It covers the positive direction only and leaves negative values (left) and the per-click magnitude implicit, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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 gives a specific verb plus the axis of movement ('Scroll horizontally'), which lets an agent separate this from the vertical sibling mouse_scroll. It stops short of naming that sibling, 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 guidance on when to choose this over mouse_scroll, nor any precondition such as the target window needing focus. The agent must infer that horizontal is the only choice when vertical scrolling is not wanted.

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