Desktop: Scroll

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds a genuine permission requirement, which is useful context, but it never explains why a scroll is flagged destructive or what state it affects (focus, active window).

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple four-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action and one prerequisite, so it is minimally sufficient. It omits what the scroll applies to (which window/focus target) and how it relates to the cdp_* and desktop_* input alternatives.

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 x, y, amount (default 3), and direction (enum, default down) all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (scroll) and target (screen coordinates), so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named cdp_scroll sibling, which is the only gap.

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?

Provides one concrete prerequisite ('Requires desktop_permission in the active mission step'), which tells the agent when this tool is callable. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over cdp_scroll or other input tools, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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