scroll_to_top

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and mentions the real-browser context; it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, whether scrolling is instant or smooth, or what happens if the page/element is not scrollable. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is short: one main sentence with a bracketed context prefix. It is mostly front-loaded, though the context note precedes the actual action, slightly delaying the specific purpose. Every part earns its place, but the ordering could be improved.

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 scroll tool with no output schema and a straightforward two-parameter input, the description covers the basic purpose. However, without annotations, it should disclose more behavioral details (e.g., side effects, return behavior) to fully equip the agent. The real-browser context note is helpful but generic.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds that the scroll target can be 'the window or an element,' which clarifies the role of the optional index parameter (element selection) beyond the schema's brief 'index of the element.' This is a small addition, but the schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 states a specific action: 'Scroll the document in the window or an element to the top.' It clearly covers scrolling to the top and targets both window and element. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling scroll tools like scroll_to_bottom or scroll_to_percent, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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?

It provides a contextual condition: '[Real Chrome browser... use only when the task requires acting on a real website.]' This is useful guidance for when to use real-browser tools generally. But it offers no direction on when to choose this tool over the numerous other scroll variants (scroll_to_percent, scroll_to_bottom, scroll_to_text, etc.).

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