scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the default 'dom_settled' readiness signal and that it returns once newly loaded rows stop arriving. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. selector not found) or whether scrolling is viewport-only vs. page-mutating, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a tight rationale, then an args block. Every sentence earns its place — no filler, no restating of the name.

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 documented, and the description covers all four parameters and the core behavior. For a browser-automation primitive with no annotations, it could still say something about error/timing edge cases, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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%, yet the description fully compensates: it enumerates valid values for `to`, explains that `selector` implies to='element', gives `amount_px` default (600) and its scope, and details the `wait_until` default and its semantic meaning. This adds real meaning the bare schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb (scroll) and resource (page/element into view) and immediately scopes the tool's role relative to siblings like read_page and click by explaining why scrolling is needed beyond reading. An agent can distinguish it from wait_for_element or read_page without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete conditions for use — infinite feeds loading the next batch, lazy images requesting on approach, off-fold elements being unclickable — which is strong contextual guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. wait_for_element) or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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