desktop_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 usefully disclose the direction convention ('positive = up'), which is not derivable from the schema, but it omits scroll units, whether x/y define the scroll target, and what state the action affects.

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 single fragment is front-loaded and wastes no words, but this is under-specification rather than true conciseness; a slightly longer description would earn its place given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition is still incomplete for a three-parameter input with zero schema coverage and no annotations describing safety or effects. Coordinate and unit semantics are missing.

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% and there are three parameters (x, y, amount). The description only partially explains 'amount' via its sign convention; x and y are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving their role (coordinates? cursor target?) unknown.

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') on the implicitly-named desktop surface, matching the desktop_* sibling family. However, it never says what is being scrolled (window, page, cursor position) or how it differs from desktop_drag, so the purpose is only minimally distinguished from siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as desktop_drag or scroll-at-cursor variants. The only hint of usage is the direction convention in parentheses.

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