scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about focus requirements, whether scrolling is instant or animated, what happens at scroll boundaries, or that modifiers (e.g., ctrl) change zoom rather than scroll. Only the meaning of 'amount' is disclosed.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the action is front-loaded before the parameter note. The brevity is efficient, though it shades into under-specification rather than ideal economy.

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 6-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the description covers only one of six parameters and no behavioral context. An agent cannot reliably know what modifiers or screenshot_after do, or what the side effects of scrolling are.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description only clarifies 'amount = number of wheel clicks'. The x/y coordinate semantics, the direction enum values, the modifiers array contents, and screenshot_after are all undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scroll the wheel') plus the coordinate anchor, which is enough to distinguish it from click, drag, and mouse_move siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast its role with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use coordinate-based scrolling versus ui_tree, click_element, or set_text, nor when to prefer key (e.g., Page Down) instead. The agent must infer the context entirely from the tool name.

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