browser_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state that scrolling occurs on a page or element and can target a tab. It does not mention defaults, animation, side effects, or error behavior, but the core operation is transparent for a relatively low-risk action.

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 and front-loaded: it states the primary action and target first, then adds the tab capability. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a simple five-parameter tool with strong schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the core concepts adequately. It could be improved by explicitly naming the ref parameter as the element selector and noting default tab behavior, but those are already present in the schema.

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%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The direction enum lacks a description, but the scroll verb plus enum values make the intent clear.

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 states a specific action ('Scroll') and identifies two possible targets: the page or a specific element. It also adds tab targeting, making the tool's scope clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond the scroll action.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_evaluate or browser_wait_for. The only usage hint is tab targeting, which describes a capability rather than a decision rule.

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