browser_scroll

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, but 'Scroll the page.' reveals nothing about how scrolling behaves (e.g., viewport vs element, default amount, smoothness) or any side effects. It is nearly a tautology of the tool name.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified—it provides no additional value beyond the tool name. It is not verbose, but it doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful context.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, and the presence of three parameters including an optional selector and direction, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify the return value, edge cases, or usage context, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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% as all three parameters (amount, selector, direction) have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Scroll the page.' clearly states the action and resource, using the verb 'scroll' and object 'page'. It is distinct enough among the sibling browser tools, though it doesn't mention that it can scroll a specific element via selector, so it doesn't fully distinguish from a potential viewport-only scroll.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the optional selector for element-specific scrolling, and no context about direction or amount. It simply states the action without any usage scenarios or exclusions.

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