scroll_to_bottom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful context: this drives a real Chrome browser via the OctoLimb extension and acts on the user's browser. It does not say whether the scroll is instant or animated, whether it waits for load, or what happens if no index is 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?

One bracketed environment caveat plus one crisp action sentence; front-loaded and free of filler. Slightly longer than strictly necessary because the environment note duplicates context likely available elsewhere.

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 two-optional-parameter scroll tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and environment adequately. It leaves gaps around element targeting (what 'index' refers to), scroll completion behavior, and no guidance on the result, but nothing critical is missing for a low-risk action.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about index or intent. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (scroll) and target (document in window or element) with a clear endpoint (bottom). It differentiates by outcome from scroll_to_top and scroll_to_percent, though it never names them explicitly, so the agent must infer the distinction from the sibling list.

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 bracketed preface tells the agent to use this only when the task needs a real website, which is useful gating. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over scroll_to_percent, scroll_to_top, or scroll_to_text, so selection among scroll variants is left implicit.

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