scroll_to_load

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail about repeatedly scrolling until page height stops growing, but it omits the max_scrolls cap and pause behavior, which materially affect how the loop actually runs.

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 focused sentence with the action and termination condition front-loaded. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 simple and has an output schema plus annotations covering safety and openness. However, because the schema has no parameter descriptions, the description should explain pause_ms and max_scrolls and clarify whether the loop is capped before the page stops growing; it does not.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the two parameters. It does not mention pause_ms or max_scrolls at all, leaving their semantics entirely dependent on parameter names and defaults.

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 a specific action, 'Scroll to the bottom repeatedly', plus the termination condition and the scenario ('infinite scroll'). It is clear enough to distinguish this from a simple one-off scroll, though it does not explicitly name the sibling 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?

The phrase '(infinite scroll)' implies the intended use case, but the description does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare it with alternatives such as scroll or wait_for. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully guided.

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