tor_scroll

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, and idempotentHint false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not disclose that scrolling may trigger lazy loading, affect page state, or that 'top'/'bottom' are absolute jumps. With annotations present, the description still fails to provide meaningful side-effect information.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the action stated in the first sentence and the parameter details in the second. No fluff or repetition appears. It could be considered slightly under-specified, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one.

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, but the description fails to cover key contextual aspects: no usage guidance, no behavioral side-effect warnings, and incomplete parameter semantics for 'amount'. The output schema likely covers return values, but even so, the overall description is not sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool in all situations.

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 carries full parameter-semantics burden. It adds value by enumerating valid values for 'direction' (up/down/top/bottom), which the schema leaves undefined. However, it omits any explanation of 'amount' (e.g., pixel units, range, or behavior when omitted), leaving 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's function ('Scroll the page') and lists the valid direction values, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling navigation tools like tor_back/forward and content-reading tools like tor_read_page, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other scrolling tools.

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 usage ('Scroll the page') and lists direction options, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tor_navigate or tor_back. There is no mention of scenarios where scrolling is appropriate, such as lazy-loading content or adjusting viewport focus.

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