browser_mouse_wheel

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which imply the tool can change state (scrolling can trigger events or navigate). The description does not disclose any behaviors beyond the bare action, such as whether it triggers scroll events, affects infinite scrolling pages, or requires a specific target. It adds no value over the annotations.

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 one short sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical guidance. It is not front-loaded with distinguishing or clarifying information—it simply echoes the name. The lack of substance makes it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Given the tool has 2 required parameters with no output schema, the description should clarify the effect and usage. It fails to explain how deltaX and deltaY relate to on-screen scrolling (e.g., negative Y scrolls up?), or what the tool returns. The sibling tools list includes similar scrolling/mouse tools, adding urgency for better differentiation.

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 100% with descriptions 'X delta' and 'Y delta' for the two required parameters. The description adds nothing beyond the schema—no clarification of units (pixels? lines?), direction (positive/negative), or typical ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides minimal documentation.

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 'Scroll mouse wheel' is a near-tautology of the tool's name 'browser_mouse_wheel', restating the action without adding specificity about what kind of scrolling (e.g., smooth, step-based, on-screen element) or the coordinate context. It provides minimal differentiation from siblings like 'browser_mouse_move_xy' or 'human_scroll'.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using 'browser_press_key' for page-down, 'human_scroll' for human-like scrolling, or scroll via click/drag). No context is given about prerequisites (e.g., needing a focus element) or use cases.

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