vtable_scroll_to

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses internal API calls (scrollToCol/scrollToRow/scrollToCell/setScrollLeft/setScrollTop), the verify=True default with automatic visibility checks, return values (scrollLeft/scrollTop and cell visibility), and even recommends using vtable_get_cell_center after scrolling. This is rich behavioral context.

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 information-dense yet well-structured with numbered usage modes and clear sentences. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 6 parameters and four usage modes, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, usage modes, parameter behavior, verification, return data, and follow-up actions. The only minor omission is iframe_selector, but it's not critical. With no annotations and no output schema details, this description goes above and beyond.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains col_field types (int or string), the four usage modes clarifying parameter combinations, verify behavior, and scroll_left/scroll_top semantics. However, iframe_selector is not mentioned in the description, leaving a minor gap for this parameter.

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 clearly states 'Scroll VTable to target position' and elaborates with four explicit usage modes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like vtable_get_cell_center and vtable_drag_column. The verb is specific, the resource is named, and the scope is well-defined.

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?

It provides an explicit priority list of usage modes based on parameter combinations, explains when to use each variant, compares to mouse dragging, and advises a follow-up step with vtable_get_cell_center for clicking. This gives clear when-to-use and includes alternatives.

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