滚动

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

The description adds a permission note stating it only changes scroll position and generates no network requests, which is valuable beyond what annotations would provide. It also explains the into_view centering behavior and element-scroll logic. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but overall it gives meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise, with two sentences covering behavior and permissions. No redundant information or filler, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers core behavior and permission context. It does not mention what happens if the selector is not found or if scrolling is impossible, but the essential information for successful invocation is present.

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 descriptions cover all parameters, but the description adds crucial interaction context: how selector, direction, and into_view relate. This goes beyond simple parameter listings and helps the agent understand combined usage.

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 it scrolls a page or element, with specific behaviors for 'into_view' and selector usage. It distinguishes itself from sibling interaction tools by describing its precise scope and behavior.

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 implies when to use the tool (scrolling) and explains behavior variations based on selector/direction, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear, so no exclusions are needed.

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