scraping_browser_scroll

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=true, and the description does nothing to explain what that means for a scroll operation (e.g. whether it mutates page/session state, triggers lazy-load requests, or invalidates a prior snapshot). With no readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description carries the behavioral burden but adds nothing.

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 as short as it can be, though it borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 zero-parameter browser step this minimal description is nearly adequate, but it omits two things an agent needs in a scrolling workflow: whether scrolling waits/settles before returning, and how it relates to scraping_browser_snapshot and scroll_to_ref. The unexplained destructiveHint=true also leaves a behavioral question unanswered.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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) plus the target position and scope (bottom of the current page), which is enough for an agent to know exactly what happens. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling scraping_browser_scroll_to_ref, which also scrolls within the same page.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for reaching lazy-loaded bottom content and that scroll_to_ref is the alternative for element-targeted scrolling.

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