browser_scroll_to

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the locator hierarchy, but omits side effects (e.g., page scroll position changes), failure behavior (e.g., missing element), and whether the scroll is smooth or instant. This is insufficient for a tool that mutates browser state.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a helpful locator chain. Every word contributes value, with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices detail needed for completeness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with zero schema documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics for 'ref'/'selector'/'task_id', nor does it cover return values or error cases. The tool is simple but still underdescribed for reliable autonomous use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It defines 'landmark' as a semantic region and shows the fallback order, but 'ref' and 'selector' are not defined, and 'task_id' is completely omitted. The priority chain helps but leaves the agent guessing about the meaning of each parameter.

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 an action ('scroll to specified element') and identifies the target as an element, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'browser_scroll' that likely scrolls the page itself. The locator priority chain (landmark→ref→selector) adds specificity about how the element is identified. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 a prioritized parameter usage order (landmark→ref→selector), which implies which parameter to try first. It does not, however, state when to use this tool over alternatives like browser_scroll, nor does it mention any preconditions for scrolling to an element. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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