app_scroll_control

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full load and does add real behavioural context: the virtualisation caveat, the sign semantics, and the crucial disclosure that 'moved: false' at the end of a list is a valid result rather than an error. It omits what happens on an unknown control_label, whether scrolling is animated/settled, and any permission or timing expectations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the all-caps emphasis and the long DevExpress-virtualisation sentence are wordier than the point requires. It is readable and mostly earns its space, yet could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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-format detail is not required, and the description wisely flags the one ambiguous return signal ('moved'). However, for a UI-automation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves too much unsaid about the required identifier and the failure modes to be called complete.

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 and largely does not. It explains the sign of the scroll amount but never names the 'lines' parameter, and gives no meaning for the required 'control_label' or for 'dialog_title' (e.g. how a control is identified inside a dialog). An agent still cannot resolve three of three parameters from prose.

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 and resource set ('Scroll a list, grid or tree') so an agent knows exactly the action and target. It does not name or contrast with the closest siblings (app_read_panel, app_expand_tree_node, app_activate_row), leaving that disambiguation to the agent's judgement.

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?

Gives a clear motivating context: virtualised controls only expose on-screen content, so scrolling is needed to reach rows that 'did not exist' to a caller. Sign convention ('positive scrolls down, negative up') is stated. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing, so it stops short of a 5.

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