mc_scroll

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and only states the mechanical action. It does not say whether the scroll is instantaneous or animated, whether it moves the pointer, whether it requires an active GUI window, or what happens if the coordinates fall outside any scrollable region.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its coordinate scope are stated immediately. Slightly more could be said within the same length by replacing the redundant 'scaled GUI coordinates' echo with a precondition note.

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?

This is a low-complexity three-parameter input tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, so not much is required. Still, the description omits basic operational context an agent would want, such as whether a screen must be open or whether scroll direction/target depends on prior cursor placement.

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 x/y documented as scaled GUI coordinates and amount documented with its sign convention, so the schema already does the work. The description only echoes the coordinate framing and adds no format, range, or unit detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource (scroll the mouse wheel) and adds the scope constraint 'at scaled GUI coordinates on the current screen', which makes the action unambiguous against siblings like mc_click or mc_key. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from a widget-level alternative such as mc_click_widget, so it stays at 4.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives: nothing says whether scrolling should target the raw coordinate space or a widget, nor what preconditions (an open GUI screen, cursor position) must hold. The 'on the current screen' phrase hints at context but is a scope qualifier, not usage guidance.

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