Scroll Mouse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavioral detail: sign convention (positive=up, negative=down), the unit of measure (one wheel notch), the 120-unit high-definition scale, and typical value ranges. However, it omits prerequisites such as whether the target window must be focused and what side effects or returns to expect.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core direction semantics before the supporting note on units. The parenthetical about high-definition scroll is slightly tangential but still earns its place by clarifying the unit scale.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a one-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers value semantics well but leaves the operational context (focus requirements, what an agent should do before/after scrolling) unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the sign convention, the physical meaning of each unit, and realistic value ranges for the single 'amount' parameter. It never names the parameter 'amount' explicitly, which is a minor gap.

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 combination ('Scroll vertically' on the mouse wheel), which is unambiguous against siblings like move_mouse, click_mouse, and drag_mouse. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use scroll_mouse versus the other mouse tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., window focus, cursor position). The scroll direction semantics are explained, but the when-to-use decision is left entirely to inference.

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