glass_scroll

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: scrolling is measured in wheel steps, modifiers are held during the action, and it names the batching behavior via glass_do when multiple actions are known. This goes beyond the schema but stops short of describing side effects or edge cases in depth.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the modifier behavior is stated briefly, and the batching alternative is placed at the end where it belongs.

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 action tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, coordinate semantics, modifier behavior, and when to route to glass_do. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds a concise restatement of the coordinate model and modifier purpose, but the heavy lifting is already done by the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scroll at window-relative coordinates by (dx,dy) wheel steps.' It clearly distinguishes coordinate-based scrolling from the sibling glass_scroll_to_element, and the batching note differentiates it from glass_do.

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer glass_do instead: 'If at least two next actions or waits are known, use glass_do instead of separate calls.' This gives a concrete condition for choosing an alternative and implies glass_scroll is for single, ad-hoc scroll actions.

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