scroll

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: direction semantics, return format, unit definition, prerequisite actions, error conditions, and references to click() for observe/settle_ms. This exceeds the burden.

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?

Description is compact (two sentences plus a note about returns and error conditions). Every sentence provides value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers return format, behavioral nuances (unit, prerequisite, errors), and parameter interpretation. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Since schema has 0% parameter descriptions, the description adds crucial meaning: amount direction/unit, observe/settle_ms reference to click(). Instance is not explained but defaults to 1. Significant value added, but instance could be clarified.

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 clearly states the tool scrolls the wheel at the current mouse position, specifying positive/negative direction. It distinguishes from sibling tools like click, drag, and move_mouse by focusing on wheel action.

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 provides guidance: scrolling targets the window under the pointer, and recommends moving the mouse/clicking there first. It also notes failure conditions (amount=0, dead instance). Implicitly suggests not using without prior pointer positioning, but lacks explicit alternatives.

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