linkedin_browser_scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the lazy-loading motivation, but says nothing about how far scrolling proceeds, whether it mutates page state, or whether it blocks/returns after content loads.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no waste or redundancy. Its brevity is a strength structurally, though it sits at the edge of under-specification.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves an agent unable to call the tool precisely. For a simple browser pagination action, a sentence on step behavior and return timing would have closed the 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 single parameter "steps" has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning, default, and the 1-20 bound are entirely undisclosed. With low coverage the description was required to compensate and does not.

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?

"Desplaza la página" names a concrete verb+resource and adds a purpose clause ("para cargar contenido diferido"), so the basic action is clear. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like linkedin_browser_snapshot or linkedin_browser_click, and it is written in Spanish while the rest of the tool set is English.

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 guidance on when to scroll versus taking a snapshot or navigating, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an open session. The only implied usage is the lazy-load rationale, which is not enough to route an agent among the many browser siblings.

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