browser_scroll

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it scrolls by a viewport step, which is a useful detail. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects like the need for a loaded page or potential changes to focus, so transparency is moderate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and specifies the scope. Every word contributes to understanding, and there is no unnecessary 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify the exact values for the 'direction' parameter (e.g., 'up', 'down', or other strings), nor any prerequisites like an open page. The agent would need to guess or rely on external knowledge to use it correctly.

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 schema has zero description coverage, leaving the 'direction' parameter undefined. The tool description mentions 'up or down', which suggests the valid values, but it doesn't explicitly map the parameter to these values. This adds some meaning beyond the schema but leaves ambiguity about accepted input format.

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 the action: scrolling the page, with a specific scope of 'one viewport step' and direction 'up or down'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_type, which perform different actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention typical use cases (e.g., navigating long pages) or any exclusions (e.g., not for horizontal scrolling). The agent is left to infer its purpose from the name and action alone.

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