滚轮滚动表格

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns by describing a mutation (dispatching a wheel event). It adds the sign convention for delta_y and delta_x, and specifies that the event is a 'real' mouse wheel event. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like triggering other handlers or behavior at scroll boundaries.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the key action, and efficiently explains the delta sign conventions.

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?

While the tool is relatively simple, the description does not explain the tab_id and table_index parameters, does not mention any prerequisites or side effects, and does not differentiate from sibling scroll tools. The output schema exists but its content is unknown, so it's unclear if return values are covered.

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?

The description clarifies the meaning of delta_x and delta_y by specifying the sign convention and that they are pixel approximations, complementing the schema descriptions. However, tab_id and table_index are not explained in the description or schema, leaving their semantics ambiguous; schema description coverage is only 50%.

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 explicitly states it dispatches a real mouse wheel event to the center of the VTable canvas, with sign conventions for delta_x and delta_y, and its purpose for manually adjusting the visible window. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like vtable_scroll_to_cell and vtable_drag_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 mentions it is '用于手动调整可视窗口' (for manually adjusting the visible window), which implies a use case, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over other scroll tools such as vtable_scroll_to_cell or vtable_drag_scrollbar, nor does it mention exclusions.

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