Mouse wheel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the sign convention and that units are wheel notches, which is useful, but it omits whether scrolling targets the window under the cursor or requires prior focus, whether it requires the app to be foreground, and what is returned or how to confirm the scroll took effect.

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 tight sentence with the direction rule front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense parenthetical, but every clause carries information.

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 3-required-parameter input tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still cannot tell what coordinate frame x/y use or how to verify success. The definition is under-specified relative to the tool's complexity.

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 must compensate. It clarifies only 'amount' (sign direction, wheel notches) and leaves x and y completely undefined — no indication of coordinate space (screen vs. window), units, or origin.

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 gives a specific verb ('Scrolls') and resource/operation ('at a position'), which clearly separates it from siblings like click, drag, and press_keys. It does not explicitly name what it is not, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It explains scroll direction semantics but gives no guidance on when to use this versus wait_for_screen_change, drag, or press_keys (e.g. Page Down). No preconditions or exclusions are stated, so the agent must infer usage.

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