browser_scroll_to

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 scrolling a semantic element into view but does not describe what happens if the element is not found, how scrolling behaves (smooth vs instant), whether it modifies the browser state, or any error conditions. The phrase 'explicitly shared tab' is vague and lacks operational detail.

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 of 10 words, which is concise. However, it is so brief that it omits important details. It could be expanded to include key behavioral and usage notes without becoming verbose. The structure is front-loaded but not sufficiently informative.

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 complexity of the locator parameter (nested object with many properties) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what constitutes a 'semantic element', how the locator should be constructed, or how the tool interacts with the browser's accessibility tree. The sibling 'browser_scroll' exists but no differentiation is provided. The description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 50%; the locator object already has a good schema description ('A semantic accessibility-tree locator; arbitrary CSS and executable scripts are not accepted.'). The tool description adds the context 'explicitly shared tab' which hints at the role of collaboration_id. However, it does not further explain the locator's properties or how to use them effectively. Overall, the description provides marginal added value beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Scroll one semantic element into view in an explicitly shared tab.' It specifies the verb (scroll), the object (one semantic element), and the context (explicitly shared tab). This is specific enough to distinguish from generic scrolling, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'browser_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_scroll' or 'browser_focus'. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and schema alone.

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