拖拽滚动条

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

The description mentions the use of real mouse events (按下→拖动→释放) and notes that scrollbar geometry is computed deterministically because it's canvas-drawn. It also states it returns before/after scrollTop/scrollLeft. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with no redundant information. Every clause adds value, covering the action, mechanism, and return value without extra 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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, some with unclear semantics), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the role of tab_id/table_index, the conditions for successful execution (e.g., scrollbar visibility), or the exact structure of the return value beyond scrollTop/scrollLeft. This leaves the agent guessing about important details.

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?

Only two of four parameters (direction and distance_px) have descriptions, with distance_px explaining the multiplication by content ratio. The tab_id and table_index parameters have no description at all, leaving their purpose and default behavior ambiguous.

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 (drag scrollbar) and the resource (VTable), with enough specificity to distinguish from sibling tools like vtable_scroll_viewport or vtable_scroll_to_cell. Mentioning 'canvas 绘制' further clarifies the target is the table's built-in scrollbar.

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 when to use this tool (for real mouse drag on the scrollbar), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like programmatic scrolling or scroll-to-cell. A user must infer the use case from the description alone, which is adequate but not fully explicit.

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