mouse_scroll

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it moves the cursor to (x,y) before scrolling, and explains the sign convention for dy and the unit switch to pixels. However, it omits any mention of dx (horizontal scroll), which is a significant behavioral gap given no annotations are provided to cover it.

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, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the action and packs in essential details without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description needs to cover all relevant behavioral and parameter details. It covers several aspects but misses dx entirely, and doesn't mention return values or edge cases (e.g., if both dx and dy are provided). This incompleteness leaves the tool under-specified for an agent to use correctly in all cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains x/y (optional coordinates, moves there first), dy (vertical direction and units), and pixels (unit toggle). But dx is completely undocumented, so an agent would not know it represents horizontal scrolling. This is a notable omission.

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 tool scrolls the mouse at specified coordinates or at the current cursor, using a specific verb ('Scroll') and resource (mouse). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like mouse_move or mouse_click by focusing on the scroll action and its coordinate behavior.

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 clear context on when to use coordinates versus current cursor (if x/y are omitted) and explains direction semantics. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use the tool, so it's clear guidance but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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