scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns position and content-growth tracking, and that it handles settle timing automatically. It does not mention potential side effects or error conditions, but the key behaviors are transparent.

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 two sentences with a critical warning, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: what it does, return info, warning, usage pattern. No redundancy or fluff.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, return values, and parameter relationships reasonably well. It could mention error handling or edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between ref/selector and container/direction/amount, noting defaults (direction: down, amount: 500), and clarifying that amount is only used with direction.

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 tool scrolls the page, a container, or an element into view, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like evaluate by explicitly warning against using window.scrollTo/scrollBy and explaining the automatic position tracking and settle timing.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use container_ref/container_selector with direction for scrolling inside a container, and advises against using evaluate for scrolling. However, it does not fully cover all alternative scenarios or prerequisites for each parameter combination.

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