sap_scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the action. It does not disclose scroll granularity, whether it blocks, what 'selected window' means, or how the screenshot options affect behavior. This is thin for a tool with a required enum direction and four screenshot modes.

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 padding. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than true economy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters (two enums, one a file-path dependent on a screenshot mode) at 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine scroll amount, timing, or how to correctly use the screenshot outputs.

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 is responsible for explaining parameters and adds nothing. The complex return_screenshot modes (as_file/as_base64/as_imagecontent/as_imageurl) and their interaction with as_file_target_folder are left entirely undocumented, and the relationship between direction and the visible viewport is unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Scroll') and resource ('the selected SAP window'), clearly distinguishing it from action siblings like sap_click, sap_type and sap_press. It does not, however, explain how scrolling relates to the other navigation tools, so it earns a solid 4 rather than 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 scroll versus using another tool such as sap_press or sap_send_vkey, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether a window must be selected first). Usage is only weakly implied by the tool name.

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