browser_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (scroll, snapshot) but lacks detail on edge cases (e.g., boundary behavior, waiting for content) or potential side effects. It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but the disclosure is minimal.

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?

Description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and outcome. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, output schema provided), and the description adequately covers the purpose and behavior for basic usage. It could mention edge cases or prerequisites, but given the output schema and simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 a single 'direction' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying 'up or down', giving the parameter meaningful allowed values. This is helpful but not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of default behavior).

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Scroll') and the target resource ('active viewport'), and explicitly mentions the result ('return a fresh snapshot'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only scrolling-related tool, with clear specificity.

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?

Implied usage is clear: use when you need to scroll the viewport and get a snapshot. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references, which prevents a score of 5.

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