wb_scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It explains that scrolling can target the document or an element and supports relative deltas, but it omits details such as whether x/y are relative, what happens when multiple modes are combined, and the return value.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then lists all parameter modes without filler. Every phase maps directly to schema properties.

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 non-destructive, multi-mode scroll tool with no output schema, the description covers the main interaction modes and the schema fills in parameter details. However, it lacks explicit guidance on parameter exclusivity and behavior when no parameters are supplied, which keeps it just below a perfect score.

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 coverage is high (83%), but the description adds semantic grouping: direction vs x/y deltas vs selector/@e. This helps the agent understand which parameter mode to choose, beyond the raw schema properties.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Scroll' with a clear target ('page or element') and enumerates three invocation modes (direction, x/y deltas, selector/@e). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling navigation, tab, and click 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 first sentence states the core use case and the 'or' chain clarifies mode selection. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, no sibling offers scrolling functionality, so the usage context is clear without exclusions.

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