scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the useful sign convention for lines (positive = up, negative = down), but says nothing about what x/y refer to (screen vs. window coordinates), whether the target must be focused, or what the background flag's 'native apps only' limitation means in practice.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the sign convention appended; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but as a conciseness measure it is efficient.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three of four parameters undocumented in the schema, the description should supply more context. It never clarifies the coordinate system, target window handling, or the return/effect of the call, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation-style input tool.

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 only 25% (background alone is documented), so the description must compensate and it partially does: it explains the sign semantics of lines and frames x/y as a position. It leaves the coordinate space and units for x/y, and their interaction with the target window, undefined.

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?

States a specific verb (scroll) and the position at which it occurs, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling chrome_scroll, which an agent must distinguish on its own.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus chrome_scroll, chrome_activate, or other input tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or context such as focusing/targeting a window first. Usage is only weakly implied by the description.

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