scroll

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses dy direction but leaves dx direction undefined, and does not clarify whether the pointer is moved to (x,y) before scrolling or how coordinates are interpreted (screen vs window). This is a significant gap for a no-annotation 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and location, no wasted words. Highly efficient.

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?

A simple tool but under-described: dx semantics are missing, coordinate system is ambiguous, and no behavioral details beyond dy direction. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully usable.

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%. The description adds meaning for x and y as coordinates and for dy (dy>0 scrolls down), but dx is only marked optional without explaining its direction or effect. Partial compensation, but incomplete.

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?

Description states a specific action (HID scroll wheel), the target location (x, y), and directional behavior (dy>0 scrolls down). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mouse_move, click, and mouse_drag.

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?

Usage is implied: scroll when you need to wheel-scroll at a position, distinct from moving or clicking. However, no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparisons are provided, so it earns an implied-usage score rather than a stronger one.

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