browser.scroll_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the operation (scroll) but does not disclose effects (e.g., whether it mutates the page, requires user interaction, or returns a value). The behavior is underspecified for an action that modifies scroll state.

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 short sentence, which is concise but omits critical details about the parameters and behavior. It could be expanded with a brief explanation of dx/dy without becoming verbose.

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 complexity of scrolling operations and multiple sibling tools, the description fails to distinguish this tool's role (e.g., relative vs absolute scrolling). It does not cover return values or effects, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters dx and dy. While 'selector' is implied, dx and dy are left to assumption (likely delta scroll amounts). The description adds no value beyond the schema's property names.

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 specifies the action (scroll) and the resource (a specific container) with a selector, which differentiates it from other scroll tools like browser.scroll_by (which likely scrolls by amount without a container target) and browser.get_scroll_state (read-only). However, it lacks details on whether the scrolling is absolute or relative, which would improve clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like browser.scroll_by or browser.scroll_to. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for use, leaving the agent without decision context.

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