scroll

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clarifies that direction auto-computes dx/dy and that distance has a 300px default, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose what the return value is, whether the scroll targets a specific widget or the viewport, or any failure behaviors beyond the generic timeout_ms parameter.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and then covers the two usage modes. Zero wasted words. Could arguably add sibling differentiation, but as structured it's tight and readable.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a reasonable but not complete job. It covers the core distinction between modes and key defaults. However, it lacks guidance on target semantics, how timeout_ms applies, expected return/result, and how this differs from scroll_until_visible which appears to be a closely related sibling. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% with each parameter already described (dx, dy, direction, distance, timeout_ms, target). The description adds the relationship between direction and dx/dy being auto-computed and the distance default, which provides genuine value beyond the schema. However, the description doesn't clarify how target interacts with scrolling (does it scroll a specific widget or the screen containing it?) or semantics around dx/dy sign conventions.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Scrolls or swipes a widget') and clearly distinguishes the two primary modes (dx/dy pixel-precise vs direction/distance swipes). It's clear and distinguishes from siblings like scroll_until_visible and drag_and_drop at a basic level, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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 by describing the two modes and when each applies ('pixel-precise scrolling' vs 'named swipe gestures'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or how it compares to scroll_until_visible or drag_and_drop siblings. 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.