browser_scroll

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether scrolling is instant, smooth, or if it waits for completion. It also does not state if it is non-destructive or safe, leaving the agent without important 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 concise, using a single sentence for purpose and a bullet-like list for arguments. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value 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 simple scroll action, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention behavior when reaching page bounds, whether it returns a result, or any side effects. Given the existence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so for direction ('up' or 'down'), pixels (number of pixels, default 500), and session_id (browser session ID). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could be improved by noting valid ranges or constraints for pixels.

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 the page up or down,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_navigate, browser_click, etc., which perform different actions.

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 for scrolling the page but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, but the sibling tools make it clear this is for scrolling only.

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