scraping_browser_scroll_to_ref

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful context about the prerequisite snapshot step and the reliability of refs over CSS selectors, but it does not describe edge cases such as invalid refs or what happens if the element is not found.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste: purpose first, prerequisite second, rationale third. Every sentence 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 two-parameter scroll action with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It covers the key prerequisite and rationale, though failure behavior is not mentioned.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that `ref` comes from the ARIA snapshot, but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: scrolling to a specific element using a ref from the ARIA snapshot. It is clearly different from generic scrolling, though it does not explicitly name the sibling `scraping_browser_scroll` as the page-level alternative.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: use `scraping_browser_snapshot` first to obtain valid refs. It also explains why this approach is preferred over CSS selectors, but it does not state exclusions or when to choose generic `scraping_browser_scroll` instead.

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