ui_scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the purpose, not any behavioral traits like whether scrolling is animated, affects the time or price axis, or depends on focus. There's no mention of side effects or limitations, which is a notable gap for a UI interaction tool.

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 directly states the tool's function without any clutter. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and target, and every word contributes to the meaning. Ideal conciseness for a simple operation.

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 relatively simple, and the schema covers parameters. However, the description omits contextual details such as whether it operates on the currently focused pane, how it interacts with page scroll, or what happens when the scroll limit is reached. Given the existence of many UI tools, a bit more context would help, but it's 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, documenting both 'amount' (with default) and 'direction' (with enum). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage. No additional context is provided that would clarify parameter interplay.

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 target (chart or page), and the directions (up/down/left/right). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ui_click or chart_scroll_to_date by being a generic scroll operation, and the enum in the schema reinforces the four directions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an open chart), which context it applies to, or any exclusions. An agent has to infer that this is the general scrolling tool among the many UI utilities.

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