browser_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only enumerates scroll modes. It says nothing about whether scrolling is synchronous, whether it triggers lazy-loading, whether it needs a focused/active tab, or what side effects occur. The listing of modes is the only behavioral signal.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates modes efficiently. It is appropriately sized, with the only wasted value being the unsupported pixel-amount claim.

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?

The tool modifies page viewport state and has two completely undocumented parameters, a mismatch between the described pixel-scroll capability and the schema, and no prerequisites stated. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the input-side gaps are substantial.

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 must compensate. It names direction values (up/down/top/bottom) but never explains tab_index, and it advertises scrolling 'by specific pixel amount' even though the schema exposes no pixel parameter and no enum, making that claim unsupported by the actual inputs.

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 gives a specific verb (scroll) and resource (page) plus the supported modes (up, down, top, bottom, pixel amount), which is far more than a tautology. It is unambiguous against the sibling list since no other tool deals with scrolling, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention that a browser/tab must already be launched, and no indication of how this relates to browser_wait or browser_get_content when content must be loaded. The agent must infer all context.

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