scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'scroll at current cursor position' and describes parameters but lacks details on scroll behavior (e.g., smooth vs. discrete ticks, whether it waits for completion, or limits). Adequate but could be more transparent.

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 very concise with two short paragraphs: the first states purpose, the second gives usage instructions followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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's simplicity and an output schema (presumably present), the description covers core aspects: parameters, prerequisite action, and purpose. It lacks error handling or edge cases, but overall complete for its complexity.

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%, yet the description adds meaning by explaining direction as a choice of four values and amount as scroll ticks with a default. This compensates for the sparse schema, though 'tick' is not further defined.

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 clearly states the tool scrolls at the current cursor position, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by requiring prior cursor movement via mouse_move(), and no other tool on the server overlaps this functionality.

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 explicitly instructs to first move the cursor with mouse_move() before calling scroll(), providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives.

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