browser_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether scrolling is instant or smooth, whether it waits for scroll-triggered lazy loading, what happens with a stale or missing element ref, or how direction interacts with amount. Only the basic mutation of viewport position is implied.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource lead, and nothing is wasted.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits scroll mechanics, the page-vs-element targeting rule implied by a required target, direction defaults, and any note on waiting or ref freshness.

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 coverage is 75% and already documents amount's default (600), the target ref/selector forms, and element's logging-only role, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the amount semantics ('by a pixel amount') without clarifying the biggest ambiguity it raises: target is required, so how does one scroll 'the page' rather than an element? Direction's default and axis behavior are also unexplained.

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), the two resources it can act on (the page or an element), and the unit of motion (pixels). An agent immediately knows what this does, though it offers no differentiation from sibling viewport tools like browser_resize or browser_navigate.

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 guidance on when to scroll versus using browser_snapshot, browser_find, or browser_wait_for to bring content into view, and no mention that target refs come from a prior snapshot. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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