browser_scroll_to

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without revealing any behavioral traits such as coordinate system (viewport vs page), units (pixels), scroll behavior (smooth vs instant), or side effects (e.g., whether it triggers scroll events). This is a minimal restatement of the tool's name and provides little transparency.

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 extremely terse (a single short clause). While there is no wasted text, the brevity crosses into under-specification, failing to provide even the most basic contextual structure. It is not a model of conciseness but rather a placeholder that leaves the agent with too little information.

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 minimal description, no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling list containing browser_scroll_into_view, the tool context is incomplete. The description does not clarify the relationship to sibling tools, the coordinate system, or the expected behavior, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent to resolve.

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?

The input schema has two numeric parameters (x, y) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds only a vague reference to 'specified position' but does not explicitly explain that x and y represent horizontal and vertical offsets, nor does it define units or coordinate origin. This is insufficient compensation for the schema's lack of detail.

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 '滚动到指定位置' (scroll to specified position) clearly states the action (scrolling) and resource (position on page), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool browser_scroll_into_view, nor does it specify whether the scroll is to page coordinates or element position, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_scroll_into_view or browser_mouse_wheel. The description provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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