browser_scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Scroll page' and fails to note whether it scrolls the viewport or a specific element, whether it requires an active session, or whether it has side effects on the page state. This is a critical gap for a browser automation tool.

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 efficient in length but lacks substantive content. It's concise in a structural sense but under-specified, failing to include any useful detail. It neither earns extra credit nor is it verbose enough to penalize heavily.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description should explain how parameters interact (e.g., whether pixels and selector are exclusive, what direction values are accepted). This description provides none, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema alone, which is insufficient for reliable use.

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 provides 100% coverage for all four parameters with descriptions like 'Scroll direction' and 'Element to scroll'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the bare action, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('scroll') and resource ('page'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It's not a tautology and distinguishes from other browser tools like click or navigate. However, it lacks nuance about scrolling within an element or by pixels, which could be inferred from the parameters but isn't mentioned here.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_navigate or browser_get, or even whether a session is required. The description does not mention any prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without any decision framework for selection.

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