campus_scroll

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that it can reach controls inside an embedded frame — but says nothing about timing, scrolling failure, or how the ref is resolved.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves required context out rather than being 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should at least explain the ref/provider pair and any session requirement. Instead it covers only the action and the frame case, leaving the invocation details incomplete.

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%, so the description carries the burden and fails: 'ref' and 'provider' are never explained. Only a weak implication that 'ref' identifies the control to scroll, and no hint that 'provider' selects a session (csmar/cnrds) is given.

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) and resource (a visible control into view), plus a distinctive scope note about embedded frames. It differentiates itself from siblings like campus_open, campus_inspect, and campus_close, though it doesn't name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to scroll versus using another tool, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the element must exist or that a provider session is required). The agent must infer that this is needed when a target is off-screen.

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