qt_mouse_wheel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the units for dx/dy (pixel vs line), the optional x/y coordinate semantics (both or neither, default center), and the scrollable content scope. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying intended behavior, though it does not mention error handling or return values.

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 three sentences: purpose, parameter details, and usage context. It is front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds essential information without waste. The formatting with code literals improves readability.

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 (7 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the key nuances: wheel delta units, coordinate anchoring, and applicable UI components. It provides enough contextual richness for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing to guess semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains dx/dy (wheel deltas, pixel or line units), pixel (unit selector), and x/y (optional positioning with 'both or neither' rule). The identity parameters (session_id, element_id) are self-explanatory given the tool context. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a precise verb-object pair: 'Scroll the mouse wheel over an element.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like click, key input, and focus. It also implies the target resource (an element), making the purpose 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?

The closing sentence, 'Use this to scroll lists, tables, canvases and other scrollable content,' provides direct guidance on when to apply the tool. It gives context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, which would merit a 5.

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