browser_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that scrolling is vertical, that positive dy moves down, and that the tool returns an updated preview. However, it does not mention behavior at scroll limits, whether a browser/page must already be open, or any failure conditions.

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?

One sentence that is fully front-loaded with the action, parameter semantics, and return value. Every phrase earns its place and there is no 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?

For a single-parameter scrolling tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: what changes, how direction works, and what is returned. The main gap is the lack of explicit preconditions or failure behavior, which is minor given the simplicity of the tool.

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 covers dy 100% with 'Pixels to scroll', and the description adds the directional meaning (positive moves down), which is genuinely useful beyond the schema. No other parameter constraints or formats need clarification.

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 names the resource (page), the action (scrolls vertically), and the core parameter semantics (dy in pixels, positive moves down). It is clear and matches the tool name, but it does not contrast itself against sibling browser tools such as browser_eval or browser_click_at.

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?

There is no statement about when to choose browser_scroll over its sibling tools, nor any exclusions or preconditions such as requiring an open page. The only guidance is how scrolling works, not when to use it.

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