mouse_scroll

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

Annotations establish that the tool is neither read-only, idempotent, nor destructive. The description usefully adds that scrolling occurs at the pointer's current position and that a confirmation string is returned, but it does not disclose scroll granularity, cumulative effects, or platform-specific behavior.

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 compact and follows an Args/Returns structure, with no filler. It loses a point because the main sentence is minimal and the Returns line ('Megerosites') offers only a vague confirmation rather than concrete information.

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 simple scroll tool with annotations and an output schema, the core behavior is captured. However, the lack of any usage context or edge-case handling (e.g., maximum scroll bounds, whether the pointer moves, or behavior when already at the end) leaves the description only partially 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description only restates the parameter names and accepted direction values ('up'|'down'). It does not clarify what 'amount' means (e.g., number of wheel steps, lines, or pixels) or how negative values could be handled, so the agent must rely on defaults and bounds from the schema.

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 identifies a specific action ('vertical scroll') and a precise target ('current mouse pointer position'). This is sufficient to distinguish mouse_scroll from sibling tools like mouse_move and mouse_click, and the Args line confirms it applies direction and amount.

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?

No guidance is given for when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as keyboard scrolling or programmatic scroll actions, and no exclusion conditions are mentioned. The description is purely functional and leaves selection entirely to inference.

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