scroll_to

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the core behavior and the pixel-based limitation of the sibling tool, but it does not mention possible caveats like element visibility, timing, failure behavior, or how ref/selector are prioritized. Basic transparency is present, but depth is limited.

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 that leads with the tool's purpose and immediately adds the differentiating fact. No wasted words.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. Given that context, the description is too minimal to fully support correct invocation: it omits how to specify the target element and what the `block` parameter controls. The strong sibling differentiation helps, but key operational detail is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'specific element' but never explains how `ref`, `selector`, or `block` should be used, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with three optional parameters.

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 a specific action and resource: scroll a specific element into view. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling `scroll` tool, making its purpose immediately unambiguous.

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 explicitly says the page-level `scroll` tool only moves by pixels, which tells the agent when to use `scroll_to` instead. This is direct, actionable guidance with a named alternative.

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