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, and it falls short: it never says whether scrolling is instant or smooth, whether it waits for lazy-loaded content, what happens if the page cannot scroll further, or whether a scroll position is returned or stored.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose followed by an Args block, so nothing is wasted, but it reads as a bare signature dump rather than a description that earns its sentences with behavioral or usage context.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the enumeration of parameters is adequate. However, with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the return value, scroll semantics, and edge-case behavior completely unexplained.

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 coverage is 0% (only titles and defaults), so the description must compensate. It documents all three parameters and supplies the allowed direction values ('up', 'down', 'left', 'right'), which the schema does not constrain via an enum, plus explains tab_id's optional default-to-active-tab behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Scroll the page.' It is unambiguous what the tool does and clearly distinct from siblings like browser_click or browser_navigate, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with an alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. scrolling to a specific element via browser_find/browser_wait_for_element). The agent must infer all usage conditions from the name alone.

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