glass_scroll

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

Without annotations, the description explains scroll units (wheel notches, not pixels) and modifier holding. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or whether coordinates are absolute or relative. Moderately 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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states the core action, second covers optional modifiers. No fluff, front-loaded.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and most parameters but misses details on x and y coordinate semantics and return/error behavior. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 60%; x and y lack schema descriptions. The description adds 'window-relative' context but does not define their coordinate system (e.g., pixels). dx, dy, and modifiers have schema details that the description echoes, providing moderate value.

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, differentiating it from sibling tools like glass_click, glass_drag, and glass_gesture. The verb 'scroll' and resource 'window-relative coordinates' are specific.

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 explains optional modifiers (e.g., catrl for multi-select) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like glass_gesture. No explicit when-not or guidance on prerequisites.

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