scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key behaviors: dy > 0 scrolls down, dy < 0 scrolls up, dx positive scrolls right, and omitting widget_id scrolls the main window. It lacks details like units or edge-case behavior, but the core action semantics are clearly stated.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, then efficiently explains the two scroll axes and the widget targeting behavior, with every sentence earning its place.

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?

The core calling details are covered, and the pid parameter is handled by the schema's own description. An output schema exists, so not describing return values is acceptable. Minor gaps remain, such as scroll units and how to obtain a valid widget_id, but these are secondary.

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 only 25%, but the description compensates by explaining dy, dx, and widget_id semantics directly. The pid parameter is already well documented in the schema, so together the schema and description fully cover all four parameters.

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 opens with 'Scroll a widget,' a specific verb and resource, and then clarifies dy/dx direction semantics. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like click, type_text, and press_key because scrolling is a distinct action.

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 implies when to use the tool ('Scroll a widget') and gives targeting guidance ('omit to scroll the main window'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, so usage guidance is largely implicit.

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