scroll_to_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: agent-scoped tab ownership with a named cross-agent error (TAB_NOT_OWNED), a configurable cap (default 8, range 1-64), tab_id auto-resolution rules, and a detailed description of the change_report return payload including truncation behavior and the read_page fallback. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation-adjacent 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized under explicit labels (When to use, Related, Multi-agent, RETURNS), which makes it skimmable despite its length. Some sentences, particularly the tab_id paragraph, duplicate the schema and could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by documenting the change_report structure and truncation semantics. Combined with multi-agent ownership rules and the usage/alternative guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents selector, visual_reason, client, tab_id, and is_final. The description's tab_id guidance ('pass only when this agent owns multiple tabs; auto-resolves otherwise') largely restates what the schema already says, and it adds nothing about selector syntax or visual_reason. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific element into the visible viewport') and immediately disambiguates from the closest sibling by naming it and its differing behavior ('scroll (scroll by pixel amount)'). An agent can distinguish this from scroll, scroll_at, 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('bring a particular element into view before interacting with it, especially on long pages where the element is off-screen') and routes to alternatives for other needs (scroll, click, get_dom_snapshot). It does not state when-not to use it or contrast with scroll_to_top/scroll_to_bottom, so it falls just short of a 5.

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