browser_scroll_into_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'scroll element into visible area' but does not explain side effects (e.g., scrolling behavior, effect on page position), whether it fails if the selector is missing, or what it returns. This is insufficient for a mutation-like action.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for the simple action, but the under-specification is a minor drawback, making it not a full 5.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not differentiate among the large sibling set, does not explain return values or failure modes, and lacks usage context. It is not complete enough for an AI agent to use confidently.

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 0%; the only parameter 'selector' lacks any description in both schema and tool description. The description does not mention the selector format (CSS, XPath, etc.) or provide examples, leaving the parameter ambiguous and the agent unable to construct valid invocations.

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 '滚动元素到可见区域' (scroll element into visible area), which clearly indicates the action (scroll) and the resource (element). It distinguishes from siblings like browser_scroll_to which likely scrolls the page rather than an element, though it doesn't explicitly call that out.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_scroll_to or mouse wheel actions. The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without sufficient information for tool selection.

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