browser_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'scroll page' and describes direction and amount. It does not explain what happens when scrolling reaches the edge, whether scrolling is relative to the viewport or an element, or how task_id affects behavior. This is minimal and leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences deliver the core action and key parameter details. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema defaults.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the basics, but it omits crucial context: differentiation from sibling browser_scroll_to, the role of task_id, and any edge-case behavior. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes this minimal description less complete than it could be, but it is not wholly inadequate.

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?

The description adds meaning for 'direction' (up/down/left/right) and 'amount' (pixels, default 500), which the schema only provides as defaults without descriptions. However, the 'task_id' parameter is completely unexplained, and with schema description coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 scrolls the page, with a verb and resource ('滚动页面' = scroll page). It explains the main parameters (direction, amount), but does not distinguish from the sibling tool browser_scroll_to, which likely scrolls to a specific element. This is clear but lacking sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_scroll_to or browser_wait. The description merely states the action and parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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