Scroll

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

With no annotations, the description does carry some real behavioral weight: it discloses the human-like input model and, importantly, the side effect that the pointer is moved to the element before scrolling. It does not say whether the call waits for scroll completion, what happens at page boundaries, or what is returned, which are the notable gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the targeting rule. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 4-parameter interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent guessing about blocking behavior, boundary handling, and result reporting. The core mechanics are covered, but the operational edge cases are not.

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 75%, so the schema already documents direction, amount, and pace. The description's one contribution is semantic: an id means 'move the pointer there first', which clarifies what the id actually does. It adds nothing about pace (read vs flick) or amount 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'Turns the mouse wheel like a person', with the target resolution rule spelled out. An agent can distinguish it from click/drag/navigate without opening the schema, though it never names which sibling to prefer when scrolling is not the answer.

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?

No when-to-use guidance: nothing says to use this for reaching offscreen content rather than navigate, press, or observe, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only conditional clause ('over an element when one is given, else where the pointer is') describes parameter behavior, not task selection.

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