browser_scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'works with virtual scroll containers used by social media sites', adding some behavioral context about compatibility. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if parameters conflict (e.g., using 'toElement' with 'position'). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists key features without redundancy. Every sentence adds value: the first covers the main action and parameter types, the second adds compatibility 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 5 parameters, 80% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and some behavioral context but lacks details on return values, error cases, or parameter interdependencies, which are important for a scrolling tool with multiple options.

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 80%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'pixel offsets' (implied by 'amount'), 'scrolling to elements' (implied by 'toElement'), and 'named positions' (implied by 'position'), but doesn't clarify interactions between parameters or provide additional syntax details.

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 action ('scroll') and target ('the page or an element'), distinguishing it from non-scrolling siblings like browser_click or browser_type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other scrolling-related tools (none exist in the sibling list), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 mentions 'supports pixel offsets, scrolling to elements, and named positions' and 'works with virtual scroll containers', which implies usage contexts but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_navigate for page changes) or when not to use it. No sibling-specific comparisons are made.

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