scroll

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context — scrolling reveals content past an edge and the viewport should be re-read only after wait_for reports stable — but it says nothing about scroll magnitude limits or how the view state changes. Adequate but not rich against an already-covered safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with no padding, and the primary targeting mechanism (node name, else x/y point) is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly cryptic and grammatically compressed ('For what's past a list's ... edge'), but it is not wasteful.

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?

For an 8-param, no-output-schema interaction tool with safety annotations already present, the description covers targeting, the scenario that motivates scrolling, and the required post-scroll workflow. The remaining detail (dx/dy direction, bounds) lives in the schema, so little is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% with all 8 params documented, including dx/dy direction and bounds. The description only restates name and x/y targeting, adding no meaning beyond the schema and omitting the wheel direction parameters entirely. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Turn the mouse wheel over a node by its name ... or at a point by x and y.' It also ties its targeting semantics to the sibling click ('found as click finds it'), which helps an agent distinguish it. It stops short of a crisp differentiation of when scrolling beats other interactions, so not 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?

Explicitly scopes the use case: 'For what's past a list's, a page's or a window's edge,' and prescribes the follow-up workflow 'then wait_for stable and look again.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it names no when-not or alternative tool beyond wait_for.

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