scraping_browser_scroll_to_ref

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

The annotation supplies destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered by structured data (though the hint is odd for a pure scroll). The description adds useful workflow context about requiring a fresh ref from the snapshot, but does not say whether the scroll waits for the element, what happens if the ref is stale, or any side effects.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the prerequisite and the rationale. No filler; every sentence contributes information.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema navigation tool, the description covers the essential prerequisite and rationale, and the annotation covers the safety hint. It is adequately complete, though it omits failure handling and any return/state information.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, including that ref is 'the ref attribute from the ARIA snapshot (e.g. "23")'. The description's mention of the snapshot is redundant with the schema's own parameter documentation, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 and resource ('Scroll to a specific element using its ref'), and the ref-based mechanism distinguishes it from the generic sibling scraping_browser_scroll. It stops short of naming that sibling or the CSS-selector-based alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Use scraping_browser_snapshot first to get the correct ref values,' which tells the agent the correct ordering of calls. It offers a comparative reason to prefer this approach ('more reliable than CSS selectors') but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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