browser_scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds comprehensively: it flags the '[Disabled]' status, explains default distances (viewport height/width), clarifies that omitting all scroll parameters returns current position without scrolling, and crucially details return values (scroll position, total size, viewport size) to compensate for the missing output schema.

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 information-dense but well-structured with the critical '[Disabled]' flag front-loaded, followed by action definition, enumerated modes, edge-case behavior (no params), and return value documentation. Every sentence conveys necessary behavioral or usage information without redundancy.

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 output schema, the description explicitly documents return values. It addresses the complex multi-modal interface (6 parameters, 3 modes) completely, notes the disabled status, and provides sufficient detail for an agent to select among the three scrolling strategies appropriately.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantic value by organizing parameters into three logical modes (element-centered, relative directional, absolute positioning), helping the agent understand parameter relationships and mutual exclusivity. It also reinforces the optional container parameter's purpose for scoped scrolling.

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 opens with '[Disabled]' status and clearly states the core action 'Scroll the page or a scrollable container.' It uniquely identifies this as the dedicated scrolling tool among siblings (distinct from browser_click_element, browser_navigate_tab, etc.) and specifies three distinct operational modes, providing precise scope.

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 delineates three usage modes (selector-based, directional relative, absolute position) and explains the behavior when no parameters are provided (returns current position). While it lacks explicit contrast with specific sibling alternatives, the three-mode structure provides clear guidance on how to invoke the tool correctly.

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