scroll

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does little with it. It does not say whether this is a touch gesture or a wheel event, what happens at the top/bottom of a page, whether the scroll animates or waits, or what the tool returns; only the amount unit ('of the screen') is disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the action, then parameters in the order they matter. The phrasing 'down (see content below)' is slightly cryptic but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-optional-parameter gesture tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the parameter space adequately but leaves the behavioral contract (edge-of-page behavior, gesture vs. wheel, any resulting state) unstated. It is minimally sufficient rather than 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 coverage is 0% – the schema lists only bare types and defaults – so the description must compensate, and it does: it supplies the four valid direction values (down, up, left, right) and constrains amount to 0.1-0.9 as a fraction of the screen. It does not restate the defaults or say what the 0.5 default means in practice, keeping it just short of 5.

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 and resource ('Scroll the screen') and enumerates the directions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'swipe' tool, which is the nearest alternative for moving content, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The parenthetical '(see content below)' implies the typical case of scrolling down to reveal off-screen content, but there is no explicit statement of when to use scroll versus swipe, tap, or get_ui_elements. Usage is only inferable from the direction enumeration.

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