scroll

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds that an element can be brought into view via selector, but it does not explain why readOnlyHint is false for what looks like a view operation, nor whether the scroll is instant or smooth, whether it triggers lazy loading, or whether it waits for the viewport to settle.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary mode (pixel scrolling by direction) precedes the element-into-view variant. Efficient, though the brevity is partly the source of the semantic gaps noted above.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a three-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no title, the description leaves the selector/direction interaction and the distinction from `scroll_to_load` unaddressed — enough to call it, not enough to call it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters — and it partially does: 'by pixels' defines `amount` units, '(down|up|top|bottom)' supplies valid `direction` values the schema lacks as an enum, and 'scroll an element into view' explains `selector`. It never clarifies how `selector` interacts with `amount`/`direction` (are they ignored when a selector is given?) or that `amount` defaults to 800, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 names a specific verb (scroll) and resource (page/element) and enumerates the four directional modes, so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `scroll_to_load`, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

Usage is only implied by the directional vocabulary; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over `scroll_to_load`, `find_in_page`, or `hover`-then-scroll workflows. No preconditions or exclusions are given.

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