mouse_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does this well by stating that positive amount scrolls up, negative scrolls down, and that x/y can target specific coordinates or use current cursor position. However, it doesn't mention potential platform-specific behavior or absence of side effects, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise: one opening sentence followed by a well-structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting is easy to parse with clear labels and explanations.

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?

For a simple scroll tool, the description covers the essential behavior and all parameters. The existence of an output schema means return values may not need to be explained. It lacks a bit of high-level context about when scrolling is applicable (e.g., scrolling a window or element), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: amount (number of clicks, direction), x and y (coordinates, with -1 meaning current position). This exceeds the minimum needed and makes the parameters clear.

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 the mouse wheel.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like mouse_move and mouse_click. The parameter details further clarify that it controls scroll direction and position.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like keyboard scrolling or mouse_move. The parameter documentation offers some context (e.g., x/y = -1 scrolls at current cursor position), but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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