scroll_to

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the key behavior: repeated downward scrolling, stopping when the text appears or when max_swipes is reached. It does not detail exact matching semantics or behavior when text is already visible, but the core side effects are clearly described.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the behavior, the second states when it is useful. Each sentence adds value and nothing is redundant.

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 that an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required here. The description adequately covers the core invocation context and behavior, though a clearer definition of how text matching works and what serial means would make it fully complete.

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 property descriptions are 0% covered, and the description adds meaning for text (the searched text) and max_swipes (the iteration limit). However, the optional serial parameter is never explained, so the gap is only partially compensated.

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 precise action: scroll down until the searched text appears on screen. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generic scroll or wait_for_text, and the use-case mention reinforces its purpose.

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?

It clearly says this is useful for long lists or settings pages where the target element is not initially visible. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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