chrome_scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the eased, per-pixel animation, the ~1/3 landing offset for selectors, and the ability to use absolute Y. This goes beyond the bare 'scroll' action, though it omits edge-case behaviors like handling when both parameters are supplied.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Cinematic in-page scroll'), followed by targeting options and a practical usage hint. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 a low-complexity tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, targeting, behavior, and a usage nuance. It is complete for practical use, though it could briefly clarify precedence between selector and y or note that these are mutually exclusive.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for 'selector' (lands ~1/3 from top) and 'y' (absolute document Y), and provides a practical duration guideline (1200–2500ms on camera), adding value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('cinematic in-page scroll') and resource ('page'), and distinguishes it from a basic scroll by highlighting 'eased, per-pixel, at reading pace' and targeting via CSS selector or absolute Y. This makes its role unique among siblings.

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 provides an implied usage context ('on camera', 'reading pace') and a duration recommendation (1200–2500ms), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like the basic 'scroll' sibling. This is implied rather than directly stated.

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