scroll_until_visible

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (scroll until visible) but doesn't disclose what happens on scroll failure timeout, whether it works with fling/momentum scrolling, or how it handles targets that never appear. It also doesn't explain the default scroll direction or step behavior. The behavior is partially disclosed but with meaningful gaps.

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 a single concise sentence that states the core function without filler. It's appropriately brief for a straightforward action tool. Slightly more detail on behavior could be warranted, but as written it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 this is an action tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It doesn't explain the scroll delta stepping behavior, the interaction between dx/dy and target visibility, or what 'visible' means (fully scrolled into view vs partially). The existence of sibling tools like 'scroll' and 'drag_and_drop' suggests the description should clarify the differentiating intent more explicitly. A list-style tool might be adequate at this level, but this action tool would benefit from more detail.

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 all 5 parameters are documented in the schema itself. However, the description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The schema also defines defaults for dx (0.0) and dy (-50.0) which gives context, so the description adds no marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Scrolls a scrollable widget until a target widget is visible' clearly states the verb (scroll) and the object (scrollable widget) plus the goal (until target visible). It distinguishes from the sibling 'scroll' tool by adding the visibility-until condition behavior, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling as an alternative.

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 implies usage in a scenario where a target widget is off-screen and needs scrolling to become visible. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling 'scroll' tool, nor does it specify when NOT to use this tool. The context of needing a visibility target is clear but exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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