smart_scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates over screens, returns positions, reuses scrolling/end detection, and falls back to OCR on tree-failed screens. This is rich behavioral detail, though it does not mention mutation safety, return format specifics, or rate limits—but given the context, the key behaviors are well covered.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and differentiated from a sibling. Every clause adds value—the comparison, the budget behavior, the reuse of scrolling mechanics, and the OCR fallback. No redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's complexity (aggregation, scroll budget, OCR fallback) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core behavior, how it differs from the closest sibling, and a key edge case (tree-failed screens). The 5 parameters are mostly described in the schema, and the description ties them to the overall workflow.

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 80% (4 of 5 params described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking 'scroll budget' to max_scrolls and explaining the aggregation semantics. It also clarifies the target and direction indirectly, though it doesn't add new syntax beyond the schema. The extra context about budget and OCR makes it slightly above 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?

The description explicitly states the verb 'Scroll and AGGREGATE' with a specific resource ('every matching element across the screens passed'), and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tool scroll_until by contrasting 'first hit' vs. 'ALL matches with their positions'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 'Unlike scroll_until (first hit), smart_scroll visits each screen in the scroll budget and returns ALL matches', providing a clear when-to-use vs. alternative. It also mentions reuse of 'one-viewport-page scrolling + end detection' and OCR fallback, giving implementation context that helps decide when to choose this tool.

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