scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether the scroll is smooth or instant, how far one invocation scrolls, whether it targets the page or a focused element, or whether any state is returned — all relevant for an agent deciding how many times to call it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation comes first and the argument domain second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics (what it does, allowed directions) but omits scroll target, extent, and return behavior. Minimum viable rather than 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 description coverage is 0% and the schema declares no enum, so the description's enumeration of 'down, up, top or bottom' is the only place the valid values appear and is genuinely load-bearing. It still doesn't explain the semantic difference between relative directions (down/up) and absolute ones (top/bottom).

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 and resource ('Scroll the page') and enumerates the valid directions, so an agent can tell it apart from the click/type/look/browse siblings without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting scope (element vs page), so it lands at clear-but-no-differentiation.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives (e.g. goto for navigation, press for keyboard paging) and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is the direction vocabulary.

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