scroll_to_element

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (correctly implying mutation of viewport state) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the search strategy (by text, swipes, timeout-bounded). However, it doesn't specify default timeout duration, what happens when text is not found, or whether the element must be visible vs merely present in hierarchy — gaps an agent would want to know.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the search strategy detail. Efficient and no wasted words. Minor point: could list the timeout default, but overall the structure is clean and scannable.

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 there's an output schema (not shown in detail) and 100% param coverage, the description is reasonably complete for a scroll-to-element tool. However, for a tool that mutates viewport state, it doesn't clarify behavior when the element cannot be found (does it error? return null?), nor does it mention interaction with the device connectivity context (serial param). Adequate but not thorough.

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%, covering all 4 params (text, serial, direction, maxScrolls). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema already fully documents each parameter's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds little beyond what's known.

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 states a clear purpose: scroll the page to bring a UI element into view. The verb 'scroll' plus resource 'page' and target 'specific UI element' is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scroll' (which likely handles pure scrolling without element search) and 'ui_find_element' (which finds without scrolling) by combining search-and-scroll 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 says it 'tries to find the element by text, then swipes up/down until visible or timeout.' This implies usage context (locating an off-screen element) but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'ui_find_element' or 'scroll'. The timeout-bounded behavior is mentioned but no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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