mouse_scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it falls short. It does not reveal what occurs when x/y are null (presumably scroll at current position), whether the tool mutates state permanently, what the response contains, or how amount and direction map to actual scroll distance. The 'optionally after moving' phrase hints at a combined behavior but leaves its semantics unexplained.

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 efficient and the core action is front-loaded, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity borders on under-specification; every word has a purpose, but several essentials are omitted entirely, so the conciseness does not fully serve the agent.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is markedly incomplete. Even with an output schema present, the agent lacks crucial call-time information: direction value enumeration, amount semantics, null-coordinate behavior, and any side-effect or return details. The single sentence is not enough for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters (x, y, amount, direction) are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description only glosses x and y as 'absolute coords' and implies a scroll operation, but never clarifies valid values for direction (up/down/left/right), the meaning of amount (lines vs. pixels), or the null behavior for x/y. It adds minimal meaning but does not fill the coverage 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 states a specific verb ('scroll'), a resource ('wheel'), and adds the scope detail 'optionally after moving to absolute coords,' which differentiates it from siblings like mouse_move (which only moves without scrolling) and mouse_click (which clicks). This is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from the toolbar cluster, though it stops short of naming an explicit sibling comparison.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not state that mouse_move should be used when only repositioning is needed, nor describe a scenario (scrolling through content) that would select this tool. The only implicit signal is the verb itself, which is insufficient among 28 keyboard/mouse siblings.

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