scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without explaining what happens when no parameters are provided (all optional), how coordinates and elementId interact, or the effect of default delta values. The schema covers parameter formats, but the description lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential purpose but omits nuances like default behavior, parameter interaction, and expected results. It is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer correctly.

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 coverage is high (83%+), and the description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema adequately documents the parameters, and the description does not detract from or enhance that understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'scroll' and the resource 'mouse wheel at an element or screen coordinate', which precisely defines the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'scroll_element_into_view' or 'hover', 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scroll_element_into_view, click_and_drag). It does not mention prerequisites, fallback behavior, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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