browser_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about scrolling within containers versus the page, and mentions scrolling elements into view. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether scrolling is instant or smooth), precedence if multiple parameters are provided, or any limitations. The description is functional but not deeply transparent about edge-case behavior.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence serves a purpose: the first enumerates the three scroll modes, the second explains when to use the container parameter. There is no wasted or redundant wording.

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?

Given 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the three main use cases (page, container, element) well. It does not explain interactions between parameters (e.g., what happens if selector and container are both set), but the schema already describes individual parameter overrides. The description is sufficient for a browser scrolling tool, though a note about parameter precedence would make it more 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the intended use of the 'container' parameter ('scroll inside scrollable divs instead of the page') and contextualizing the 'selector' parameter as 'scroll an element into view'. This enriches the schema's descriptions with real-world scenarios, particularly for container scrolling.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('scroll') and resource distinctions: page, container element (with examples), and element into view. It differentiates from sibling tools like browser_navigate and browser_act by focusing solely on scrolling behaviors. The scope is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 explicitly says 'Use 'container' to scroll inside scrollable divs instead of the page,' giving clear guidance on when to use the container parameter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like browser_eval for scrolling, but as the dedicated scroll tool, the appropriate context is implied. There is no exclusionary guidance, but the container-vs-page distinction provides actionable usage direction.

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