mouse_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains that delta_y negative scrolls up and positive scrolls down, and mentions delta_x for horizontal scroll. However, it does not clarify what the delta values represent (e.g., number of notches or lines), nor does it describe the behavior if the position is off-screen or the scroll limits.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly explains the key parameter behavior.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the essential information: action, position, and scroll direction. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the magnitude of delta_y (e.g., lines vs. pixels) or mentioning any side effects. Overall, it is adequate for basic usage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra beyond the schema: it reiterates the direction of delta_y, but the schema already provides that information. The description does not add new meaning or format details.

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 action ('scroll mouse') and the key parameters (position x,y, scroll direction via delta_y). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mouse_click and mouse_move by specifying the scroll operation.

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 implies usage when a scroll at a specific position is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like keyboard actions or navigating. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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