Scroll Chrome page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the mechanism (simulated PageUp/PageDown presses) and the target scope (first Chrome window, active page). However, it does not clarify whether Chrome needs to be focused first, how 'first window' is determined, or how the tool behaves if no Chrome window/page is available.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, target, direction options, and mechanism with no filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main missing context is the behavioral precondition about focus and 'first window' ordering, but the action, scope, direction, and mechanism are all present.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters, including the direction enum and the amount bounds with a default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific action (scroll), a specific target (active page in first Chrome window), and the mechanism (PageUp/PageDown key presses). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling Chrome tools like open_chrome_tab or focus_chrome_tab, which handle tab management rather than scrolling.

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 applicability by specifying 'active page in the first Chrome window,' but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions such as requiring Chrome to be focused. No alternative scroll tool exists among the siblings, so the omission is less harmful, but the usage condition remains implicit.

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