scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'results stay local' which is a useful behavioral note (probably indicating side effects or data handling). However, it does not describe the return value, error behavior, or how scrolling works (e.g., it might scroll a specific element or the whole page). The description also doesn't mention any prerequisites or side effects, which is a gap for a tool that likely mutates the browser state.

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 that conveys the essential purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It includes a unique detail about locality. No fluff, but it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose. The structure is effective for a simple tool.

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 is relatively simple (scroll operation) with a small schema. The output schema is absent, so the description should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., a confirmation, the new scroll position) and provide usage context. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but misses details about the return value and how the scrolling is applied (e.g., vertical vs horizontal). Since there are no annotations and no output schema, the description could be more complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. However, the description does not mention any parameters. It only says 'scroll operation', which implies the 'pixels' parameter controls the scroll amount, but that is not explicit. The description adds almost no semantic meaning beyond the schema names, so it fails to help the agent understand the meaning of 'pixels' or 'session_id' in context. Since it doesn't compensate, the score is low, but the schema itself is relatively clear (e.g., pixels has min/max), so a 3 is given because the tool is simple.

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 clearly states the tool performs a 'scroll' operation in the local Chrome browser session, which is a specific verb+resource. It also adds a key detail that results stay local to the Agent, which is unique and distinguishes it from other browser actions like navigate or click. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is still very clear.

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 the tool is used to scroll within the current browser session, based on the phrase 'local Chrome browser scroll operation'. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when you need to scroll vs. observe or click). No exclusion or alternative is mentioned, so it provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance.

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