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 states the mechanical action and gives no indication of side effects, whether it is read-only, or what happens if the page is not scrollable. It also does not mention that scrolling is relative to the current position. This is a notable gap for an action without annotation support.

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 focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and unit, and the key parameter meaning is conveyed immediately. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of 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?

The description is minimal but acceptable for a simple, two-parameter tool. It covers the core 'do what' but omits behavioral transparency and usage context, which are important given no annotations and no output schema. The absence of any guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools leaves the description incomplete in a broader operational context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'delta pixels,' which aligns with delta_y and clarifies the unit, adding a small amount of semantic value beyond the schema. It does not describe the direction convention (positive vs. negative), which is left to the parameter description.

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 action: 'Scrolls the page vertically by delta pixels.' It uses a specific verb, resource (page), and unit (pixels), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_click. The tool's purpose is unambiguous even without referencing siblings.

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 usage: scroll when you need to move the viewport vertically. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose scroll over alternative navigation tools, and it does not mention any prerequisites like a loaded page or session context. This leaves some inference burden to the agent.

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