scroll_to_percent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral context: this drives the user's real browser through the OctoLimb extension, and that omitting index scrolls the whole document rather than an element. It does not describe return values, side effects on viewport state, or failure modes.

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 the core action, followed by the conditional element-vs-document distinction. The bracketed environment note is boilerplate but earns its place by setting the real-browser context; no wasted sentences.

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 three-parameter, no-output-schema scroll tool with no annotations, the description covers the action, the optional-index behavior, and the operating environment adequately. Only minor gaps (no mention of what is returned or error conditions) remain.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond the schema: the conditional behavior when no element index is specified (scroll whole document). The yPercent bounds and meaning are left to the schema, which documents them well.

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 resource (vertical percentage of document or element), and distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like scroll_to_top, scroll_to_bottom, and scroll_to_text by defining percentage-based scrolling. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 preamble gives a clear usage condition — use only when the task requires acting on a real website via the real Chrome browser. It does not, however, explicitly route between this and sibling scroll tools (e.g., when to prefer scroll_to_percent vs scroll_to_top), leaving that to inference.

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