nex_browser_scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral nuance ('optionally bringing a target into view first'), which adds value. However, it doesn't mention what happens when both target and delta values are supplied, whether the scroll is instant or animated, or any side effects. The description adds some transparency but remains thin for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Scroll the page'), and every word adds meaning. There is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant detail. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate for these gaps. It doesn't explain how the parameters interact (e.g., whether target overrides delta, or if both can be used together), what the return value is, or what error conditions may arise (e.g., target not found). The description is too terse to fully contextualize the tool for an agent.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions), and the description helps explain 'target' by linking it to the 'bring into view' behavior. However, the two core delta parameters (deltaX, deltaY) are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description provides no insight into their semantics (e.g., pixels, relative vs absolute), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scroll') and resource ('the page'), and clearly distinguishes this from all sibling tools (none of which are scroll-focused). It also mentions the optional target-bringing behavior, which helps define its unique role.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (whenever scrolling is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that intense scrolling could be done via evaluate/run_code, or that cursor-based actions like click/hover are unrelated. The usage context is clear but exclusions are not stated.

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