scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core action and a prerequisite ('current scrollable view'), but does not explain what 'forward' or 'backward' mean in practice, how much the view scrolls, or what happens when no scrollable view is available. This is minimum-viable transparency.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and differentiator are front-loaded, and every word carries meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The main gaps are the semantics of 'forward'/'backward' and behavior when no scrollable view exists, which are minor for typical use. The sibling set and output schema cover much of the surrounding 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 0%, but the single parameter 'direction' is fully enumerated with self-explanatory values. The description adds the useful context that direction is used without coordinates, yet it does not disambiguate 'forward'/'backward' or the mapping between directions and scroll behavior. It partially compensates for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb 'Scroll', a clear resource ('the current scrollable view'), and the key differentiator 'without needing coordinates.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swipe, which require coordinates, without having to inspect their schemas.

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 phrase 'without needing coordinates' signals when this tool is appropriate and implicitly contrasts with coordinate-based alternatives, but it does not name those alternatives explicitly or state exclusions. This is clear context rather than a fully explicit routing rule.

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