remote_macos_mouse_scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'automatic coordinate scaling' and 'environment variables for connection details', which adds some context about how the tool works. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the remote machine is unavailable—significant gaps for a remote control 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every element earns its place: the action (mouse scroll), target (remote MacOS machine), key feature (automatic coordinate scaling), and implementation detail (environment variables). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (remote control with coordinate scaling), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the what and how at a high level but lacks details about behavioral expectations, error handling, or return values. For a tool that performs remote actions, more context about reliability and failure modes would be beneficial.

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 schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'automatic coordinate scaling' which relates to source_width/source_height parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage nuances. This meets the baseline 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('perform a mouse scroll'), target resource ('on a remote MacOS machine'), and key functionality ('with automatic coordinate scaling'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mouse_click, mouse_move, and mouse_drag_n_drop by specifying the scroll action rather than click, move, or drag operations.

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 implies usage context through 'remote MacOS machine' and 'environment variables for connection details', suggesting this tool is for remote control scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like mouse_move or other mouse actions, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond the implied remote connection setup.

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