scroll_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether scrolling is incremental or continuous, if it requires a loaded page, potential side effects (e.g., triggering lazy-loaded content), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description's minimalism is somewhat mitigated. However, for a tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it lacks details on usage context, parameter meanings, and behavioral nuances, making it only minimally viable.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'session_id' refers to (e.g., browser instance) or clarify 'direction' (e.g., 'up' vs 'down' as strings, default behavior). This fails to address the undocumented parameters adequately.

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 'Scroll page up or down' clearly states the action (scroll) and resource (page), but it's vague about scope and lacks differentiation from siblings like 'navigate_back' or 'navigate_forward'. It doesn't specify if this scrolls the entire page or a specific element, which could be important given sibling tools like 'click_element'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active browser session), exclusions, or how it differs from other navigation tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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