human_scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'smooth-scroll' but does not clarify whether scrolling is animated, blocking, or if it waits for completion. It does not specify what happens when the scroll boundary is reached, error handling, or the execution context (despite hinting at browser_evaluate). Significant behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 sentence of 80 characters, which is concise and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. There is no extraneous information. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting important details, so it is not maximally efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what 'smooth-scroll' entails, the behavior of the default dy value of 600, or any side effects. With a large set of sibling tools, more context is needed to help the agent select the appropriate scrolling tool. The description is too minimal.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for dx and dy. The description adds the context that scrolling is by a 'pixel delta', but this is already implied by the schema parameter types and descriptions. It does not explain the direction conventions (positive dx = right, positive dy = down) or the default values. The description provides minimal additional value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Smooth-scroll'), the resource ('current page'), and the mechanism ('by a pixel delta'). It specifies the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like browser_mouse_wheel or browser_evaluate, which might also affect scrolling. The mention of 'official browser_evaluate' provides implementation context but not explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_mouse_wheel, browser_evaluate). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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