da_scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It clarifies the delta semantics (positive/negative direction mapping), which is a key behavioral detail. It also explains the 'current or given cursor position' behavior, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention stepPx behavior or any side effects, but the direction mapping is the most critical semantic detail.

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 that conveys the core purpose and direction semantics efficiently. It front-loads the primary action and provides the most critical disambiguation (direction mapping) inline. Could arguably have mentioned stepPx, but overall it's tight and scannable.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers dx/dy semantics but leaves stepPx completely unexplained. For a tool with optional parameters that aren't self-explanatory from names alone (x, y, stepPx), the description should elaborate more. However, the core function is adequately specified for basic use.

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 explains dx and dy semantics (pixel deltas, direction mapping) which is valuable. However, it provides no explanation of the optional x/y (cursor position) or stepPx parameters — stepPx in particular is cryptic from the schema alone (5 params, only 2 required) and the description does not clarify what it does.

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 verb (scroll) and resource (wheel at cursor position), and specifies the coordinate semantics (positive dy = down, positive dx = right). It distinguishes itself from sibling mouse tools (move, click, drag) by focusing specifically on wheel scrolling. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 context (scrolling within a UI) and mentions it works at current or given cursor position, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explain when to prefer this over other input methods or mention any exclusions (e.g., not for canvas-panning scenarios, or when da_key/da_drag would be more appropriate).

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