scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It mentions scrolling actions but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether it requires a loaded page, error conditions (e.g., if selector not found), or how it interacts with browser state. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence in Russian, front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating the two modes (scroll by direction/distance vs. scroll to element), but it's not wasteful.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error handling, or dependencies on other tools like 'connect_to_browser'. For a browser interaction tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., that 'selector' overrides 'direction' and 'distance') or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Прокрутить страницу или к элементу' (Scroll the page or to an element) states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what resource it operates on (browser tabs) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'navigate' or 'wait_for_element'. It's vague about whether this is for scrolling within a page or between pages.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an active browser connection (implied by sibling 'connect_to_browser'), nor does it specify scenarios where scrolling is appropriate over other navigation methods. The description alone provides no usage context.

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