MouseWheel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the high-level action and says nothing about side effects, event generation, coordinate-space implications, notebook requirements, or animation behavior. This leaves the agent without a clear behavioral 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?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is structurally concise, though it omits contextual detail that would make it more useful.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single high-level sentence is not enough. The description does not cover usage context, prerequisites such as notebook focus or connection, or return/error behavior; the rich schema compensates for parameter meaning but not for the missing overall context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but x/y, deltaX/deltaY, duration, selector, notebook, and timeout are all documented with descriptions and defaults in 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Simulate') and resource ('mouse wheel scroll'), and adds a positional scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling mouse tools like MouseClick, MouseDrag, MouseHover, and SendKeys by naming the wheel action, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose MouseWheel over alternatives such as MouseDrag or MouseHover, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The appropriate usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the single-sentence definition.

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