wb_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 doesn't state whether scrolling waits for completion, what it returns, whether it is read-only/non-destructive, or how container scoping behaves – only the bare scroll modes are described.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the three modes. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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 7-parameter, zero-required, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is thin: it doesn't explain the container/session semantics, default scroll amount behavior, or what the result looks like. The high schema coverage partially compensates, but gaps remain around behaviors the schema can't express.

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 86%, so the schema already documents x, y, amount, session, selector, container and direction well. The description mostly restates those modes and doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies. It omits mention of container and session entirely.

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 (scroll) and resource (page or element) with the three invocation modes (direction, x/y deltas, selector/@e). It clearly conveys what the tool does; sibling differentiation is implicit since no other tool in the list scrolls.

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 three modes (direction, x/y deltas, selector/@e) imply which parameters to combine for a given intent, but there's no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on which mode to prefer for a given goal.

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