scroll_to_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'repeatedly' and 'until visible,' hinting at iterative behavior, but lacks details on error handling, timeouts, scroll direction, or what happens if the element is not found after max_scrolls. This leaves gaps for a tool with potential side effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and condition, making it easy to grasp quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error cases, or return values. For a tool with 4 parameters and potential iterative operations, more context on failure modes or success criteria would improve completeness.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'by' and 'value' define the 'criteria' for matching, but it does not explain parameter interactions or usage nuances, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('scroll down repeatedly') and target ('until an element matching the given criteria is visible'), distinguishing it from siblings like tap_element or wait_for_element that involve different interactions. It uses precise verbs and defines the resource scope effectively.

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 description implies usage when an element is not immediately visible and requires scrolling to locate it, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like tap_element or wait_for_element, which could offer more direct guidance.

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