browser_scroll_to

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true and openWorldHint: true, but the description adds no further behavioral context, such as coordinate system interpretation, effect of combining target with coordinates, or whether the action has side effects beyond scroll position. It simply restates the basic function without enriching the agent's understanding.

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?

A single, concise sentence front-loads the action and resource, with no redundant words or filler. It is perfectly sized for the given complexity.

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 four optional parameters and no required ones, but the description leaves ambiguity about default behavior when no parameters are provided and how the target and coordinates interact. Given the destructiveHint annotation, more behavioral caveats would be beneficial, but the schema partially compensates.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minimal value by summarizing the modes but does not clarify parameter relationships or default behavior. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Scrolls' and clearly identifies the resource ('the page or a specific element') and the two modes ('into view or to custom coordinates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_find, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 usage for scrolling but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as when a simple navigation would suffice, leaving room for assumption.

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