glass_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains wheel steps and modifiers, but does not mention the effect of null dx/dy values, side effects, or response behavior. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks explicit behavioral caveats.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and essential modifiers. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description plus schema provide adequate understanding, but gaps remain: no guidance on null dx/dy behavior (e.g., what happens if only x and y are provided), and no annotations to cover safety or side effects. The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, so more context would help.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying dx/dy are wheel steps and providing modifier examples with intended use cases (multi/range-select), going beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 tool scrolls at window-relative coordinates by wheel steps, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like glass_scroll_to_element by emphasizing coordinates and wheel steps.

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 for precise wheel scrolling at a given point, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like glass_scroll_to_element or glass_gesture. 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.