browser_scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action and supported directions, but does not mention side effects, failure modes (e.g., invalid selector), or how smooth/amount affect behavior. This is minimal but not dangerously opaque for a simple, reversible UI action.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the key direction options. It contains no filler or redundant information, every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with four optional parameters and an output schema, the description is adequately sized but incomplete. It gives the essential purpose and directions, but omits details about amount units, selector format, and smooth behavior. The existence of an output schema covers return values, so the main gap is parameter semantics, which drags down completeness.

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 for parameter meanings. It only clarifies the 'direction' parameter by listing possible values ('up, down, left, right'). The meanings of 'amount', 'smooth', and 'selector' are left to inference from their names, which is insufficient given the total lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Scroll') and the target resource ('page content or a specific scrollable element'), making its purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from other browser tools like browser_navigate or browser_click, which have different actions. The specific mention of both whole-page and element-level scrolling adds precise scope.

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 clear usage context by specifying two scenarios: scrolling the page or scrolling a specific element. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the tool's purpose is self-evident among sibling tools, and no alternative scrolling tool exists. This qualifies as clear context with no exclusions needed.

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