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 only states the two modes without explaining what happens if both offsets and selector are provided, scroll behavior (smooth/instant), side effects, or return values. This is a significant gap for an interactive tool.

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 a single, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly states the two main actions. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 moderate complexity (3 optional params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is under-specified. It lacks critical context about how parameters interact, scroll alignment behavior, and any side effects, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent trying to decide how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The description text adds minimal extra meaning by mapping 'page' to x/y offsets and 'element into view' to selector, but it does not clarify interactions between parameters (e.g., are offsets ignored if selector is present?). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's verb ('Scroll') and resource (page or element), and distinguishes two modes: scrolling the page with offsets and scrolling an element into view. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the tool name, though there is no other scroll tool in the sibling list.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, mutual exclusivity of parameters, or conditions under which scrolling is appropriate. Users are left to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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