wavexis_dom_scroll

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds the return format (JSON with 'ok' status). However, it could disclose more about scrolling behavior (e.g., smoothness, failure modes, priority between selector and offset).

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 very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could better structure parameter and return details. The brevity is generally positive, but some nuance is sacrificed.

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?

The tool is simple (scrolling), and the description covers the basics. However, it lacks details on default behavior when both selector and offset are provided, the required session_id, and edge cases. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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?

The description only mentions 'Scroll parameters (selector or x/y offset)' without detailing individual fields. The schema has property descriptions, but the tool-level description does not add value beyond the schema. Given 0% schema description coverage in the tool description, this is a significant gap.

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 tool scrolls to an element using a selector or by offset. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying two modes (selector or x/y offset), making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 (for scrolling), but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like wavexis_drag or other scrolling methods. No exclusion criteria or context is given.

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