GhostDesk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the action (scroll at a position), constraints (max 5 steps), and return values including screen change detection and reaction time, which adds valuable context beyond basic parameters. However, it doesn't cover potential errors or side effects like out-of-bounds scrolling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and key parameters. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains parameters, and the third details return values, with no wasted words or 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 complexity (interactive UI tool), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the action, parameters, constraints, and return structure, but could improve by addressing error cases or integration with sibling tools like screen_shot for verification.

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. It adds meaning by explaining 'direction' as up/down/left/right and 'amount' as number of scroll steps with a max of 5, which clarifies beyond the schema's enum and integer types. However, it doesn't detail 'x' and 'y' parameters (e.g., coordinate system or units).

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Scroll') and resource ('at a position'), and distinguishes it from siblings like mouse_click or mouse_drag by focusing on scrolling behavior. It explicitly mentions the direction and amount parameters, making the action distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mouse_drag or key_press for navigation, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a visible screen or active application. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling comparisons.

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