scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavioral traits. It discloses the use of window.scrollBy, instant vs. animated behavior, and the change from percentage-based to pixel-based. It could further explain edge cases like negative pixels, but covers key aspects.

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 two paragraphs; the first sentence is front-loaded. The second paragraph provides historical context that may be helpful for transparency but adds length without direct usage benefit. It could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (not shown but present), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not cover parameter details, leaving some gaps in completeness. The behavior is well described.

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%, and the description only mentions 'pixels' in the first sentence. It does not explain the 'direction' parameter or valid values for 'pixels' (e.g., can be negative). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 it scrolls the page up or down by pixels using JavaScript window.scrollBy. It specifies the resource (page) and action (scroll), and distinguishes from siblings like scroll_to_element.

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 explains the scrolling is instant and not animated, and contrasts with a previous implementation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide conditions for usage.

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