scroll_at

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does a lot: CDP trusted-event dispatch, one wheel tick per call, multi-agent tab scoping, cross-agent rejection with TAB_NOT_OWNED, and a configurable cap (default 8, range 1-64). It stops short of explaining what the cap limits (rate vs concurrency) or what a successful call returns, leaving a real gap for a 8-param mutation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by semantics, usage, related tools, and edge-case scoping in a tight sequence. No sentence is filler; even the multi-agent tail is compressed into one line with concrete constants.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, direction semantics, usage scenarios, sibling routing, and multi-agent ownership well. It is only mildly incomplete on cap semantics and response behavior, which is defensible given the constraints.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by defining the deltaY sign convention (negative = zoom in/scroll up) and the repeat-call semantics ('call multiple times for more zoom') that the schema only implies via '-120 = one tick'.

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?

Starts with a precise verb+resource ('Scroll (mouse wheel) at specific viewport coordinates using CDP trusted events') and immediately distinguishes itself from page-level scrolling by naming the exact use cases (map/canvas zoom). An agent can tell it apart from scroll, scroll_to_top, and scroll_to_bottom without opening any schema.

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?

Contains an explicit 'When to use' clause (map zoom, canvas zoom, elements where page-level scroll does not trigger desired behavior) and a 'Related' clause routing to the correct sibling alternatives. It even states when to pass tab_id, which is a selection condition rather than a parameter spec.

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