safari_scroll_to_element

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that text mode scrolls down until the text appears, which is helpful, but it doesn't cover failure behavior, timeout consequences, or alignment defaults. The schema covers some of this, but the description adds only one behavioral nuance.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the virtual DOM note is a concise, valuable addition. Everything earns its place.

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 scroll tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage and the special virtual DOM case. It lacks details on error handling or return behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, it's sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that selector and text are mutually exclusive alternatives and by specifying the virtual DOM use case for text. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific action (scroll) and target (element), and distinguishes two methods (CSS selector or text). It also calls out the virtual DOM (Airtable) case, which clarifies when each method applies. This clearly differentiates from generic scroll tools.

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?

It provides explicit guidance for virtual DOM pages ('use text') and explains that text scrolling continues until the text appears. It implies selector is for standard DOM but doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is useful but could be more explicit about when to choose this over sibling scroll tools.

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