jevbrow_scroll_or_wait

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, openWorld=true, and destructive=false. The description adds that the tool executes exactly one action and then returns a fresh observation, which is useful. It does not detail side effects, timing, or prerequisites, but the core behavioral profile is adequately covered by the combination of annotations and description.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action ('Execute one observed scroll or wait action by action_id') before stating the result, making it efficient and immediately scannable.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, the required fingerprint parameter is left unexplained, and the origin of action_id/fingerprint is only implied by the word 'observed'. For a low-complexity tool this is a minor but real completeness gap.

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 needs to compensate. It partially does by explaining action_id as the identifier of the observed action to execute, but fingerprint, a required parameter, is never mentioned or explained. This leaves a meaningful gap in parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('execute'), a specific resource ('one observed scroll or wait action'), and the expected result ('return a fresh observation'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools like jevbrow_click, jevbrow_type_text, and jevbrow_select without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you have an action_id for a scroll/wait action and want an updated observation. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives such as 'for clicks use jevbrow_click', but the scroll/wait scoping makes the appropriate use case clear.

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