desktop_scroll

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

Annotations already state this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world action, so the description should add context about screen-state effects, focus/activation requirements, or the meaning of the verification step. Instead it adds nothing beyond the basic action: no mention of what verify_content does, whether scrolling can be blocked at boundaries, or how allow_windows/allow_activate affect behavior.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but it is undersized relative to an eight-parameter tool, so concision comes at the cost of specification. It reads efficiently but leaves too much unsaid.

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 an eight-parameter UI automation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine the semantics of clicks, verification, window-restriction, or frame-scoping options from this sentence alone.

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% across eight parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It clarifies only x/y as a coordinate pair and direction implicitly through 'vertically or horizontally', leaving clicks (default 3), from_frame, allow_windows, allow_activate, and verify_content entirely undefined for the agent.

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 ('Scroll') with both axes of motion and the targeting mode ('at (x, y) or current cursor position'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like desktop_click, desktop_drag, and desktop_key. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action itself 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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer scrolling over desktop_drag, desktop_move, or desktop_ui_action, nor any preconditions such as whether the target window must be focused or activated first. The only usage hint is the implicit choice between explicit coordinates and the current cursor position.

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