firefox_scroll

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, which is a surprising profile for a scroll and demands explanation the description does not give. It never says what state changes or can be lost, whether scrolling triggers lazy loading, or how it interacts with a scrolled frame. The only added behavior context is the CSS-pixel unit and the 'authorized' hint.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient but leans toward under-specification rather than conciseness, so it does not earn a 5.

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 four-parameter mutation-flagged tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine direction conventions, frame targeting, or what the destructive hint implies, all of which it needs before invoking the tool safely.

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 0%, so all four parameters (x, y, tabId, frameId) are documented nowhere but their types and numeric bounds. The description only clarifies the unit for x/y; it does not explain sign direction (negative = up/left), what omitting x does, whether frameId defaults to the top document, or how tabId relates to firefox_list_tabs.

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 or frame) plus the coordinate unit (CSS pixels), which is enough to distinguish it from every sibling such as firefox_navigate or firefox_click. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for page-level vs element-level movement, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 such as firefox_navigate or firefox_point for reaching offscreen content. The word 'authorized' hints at an access prerequisite but never states what authorization is needed or how to obtain it (cf. firefox_request_access).

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