Scroll

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals meaningful behavior: it remembers scroll position across calls in next-chunk mode, reports reachable vs. remaining content, and explicitly identifies virtualized containers instead of presenting a partial view as complete. This is valuable transparency that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action modes and then adds behavioral reporting details, making it easy to scan while still packing relevant information.

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?

It covers the main behaviors and high-level return information, but because there is no output schema, it lacks specifics about the exact response format. It also does not define the action enum values or the semantics of timeout_ms, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool precisely.

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. It alludes to action modes and 'location' as a named element/container, but it never explains allowed action values, the exact meaning of amount, how page is used, or timeout behavior. The description gives only loose mapping to the five parameters.

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 verb ('scroll') and enumerates distinct modes: by amount, to a named element, to the end, within a container, and a next-chunk mode. This makes the tool's purpose concrete and clearly distinguishes it from general navigation siblings like navigate or wait_for.

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 gives clear context for when the next-chunk mode is useful ('a long page is walked without re-reading it') and for virtualized-container handling. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_page_view, navigate, or find_elements, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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