pilot_scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states return value ('Confirmation of what was scrolled and in which direction'), explains both modes (with/without ref), lists possible errors (element not found, timeout of 5s), and implies non-destructive behavior (scrolling). This is comprehensive for a scrolling tool.

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 concise and well-structured: introductory sentence, usage guidance, bulleted parameters, return value, and errors. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. It is easy to scan and understand.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter details with defaults, return type, and error conditions. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds value by stating the default for direction ('bottom') and explaining the interplay: direction only applies when no ref is provided. This clarifies usage beyond the schema, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Scroll the page or a specific element into view.' It distinguishes between scrolling with a ref (element) and without (page), which is specific and unambiguous. Among siblings, no other tool handles scrolling, so it is easily distinguishable.

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 usage scenarios: 'Use when the user wants to scroll down a long page, scroll to the bottom, scroll to the top, or scroll a specific element into the viewport.' It also differentiates behavior based on the ref parameter, giving clear guidance on when to provide a ref vs. not.

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