pointer_scroll

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 adds a useful detail beyond the schema: the sign convention for dx and dy. However, it does not state whether the pointer is moved to the point first, what units dx/dy use, or whether any settling or screenshot behavior occurs. This is a meaningful but partial disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded: the action is stated first, followed by the most important parameter semantics. There is no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly expanded without becoming bloated.

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 a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse to be complete. It leaves key invocation details to the schema or agent inference, such as what x/y actually represent, how dx/dy are interpreted, what expect_window does, and what happens after the scroll. The richer schema descriptions for look and settle_max_s help, but the overall tool context remains under-specified.

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 low (38%), so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for dx and dy by specifying scroll direction, and 'at a point' implies x and y are the target coordinates. However, it does not explain expect_window, the meaning or units of dx/dy values, or other parameters, so compensation is 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?

The description identifies the operation as a wheel-based action at a point, which distinguishes it from pointer_click and pointer_move siblings. The direction semantics ('dy positive scrolls down, dx positive scrolls right') further clarify what the tool does. It could be stronger by explicitly saying 'scrolls' rather than 'wheel clicks', but the meaning is reasonably clear.

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 about when to use pointer_scroll versus alternatives like pointer_click, pointer_drag, or pointer_move. No context is given for scrolling behavior, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferable. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and minimal description.

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