mouse_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 usefully explains the sign conventions for deltaY and deltaX, but it does not state whether the pointer moves, whether coordinates are absolute screen coordinates, what units the deltas use, or whether scroll events are injected as wheel events.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful directional semantics.

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 simple four-parameter tool with fully documented schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks context on coordinate system, delta magnitude units, focus requirements, and whether the scroll affects the element under the coordinates or requires a prior mouse position.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats what the schema already states about positive/negative delta directions, adding little new semantic meaning beyond the structured parameter descriptions.

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 action: scroll at specified coordinates. It is specific enough to distinguish from mouse_move, mouse_click, and mouse_drag, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling animation_scroll.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like animation_scroll or keyboard-based scrolling. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions to help an agent decide between sibling tools.

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