browser_scroll

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately describes the basic scrolling action but does not explain what happens if both selector and pixel coordinates are provided, or how scrolling interacts with the current scroll position. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity, though the core behavior is clear.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only useful additional context. Both sentences earn their place, with no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation scenarios well. It explains both modes and gives a practical use case. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on parameter precedence, but this is unlikely to be critical for a scrolling action.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds a high-level mapping between 'element' and selector, and 'pixel amount' and x/y, but does not provide additional detail beyond what the schema already contains. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('scroll') and resource ('the page'), and clearly distinguishes two modes: by element or by pixel amount. It also adds a concrete use case ('reaching elements below the fold'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable among the sibling browser tools.

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 gives clear usage context by explaining that scrolling is useful for reaching elements below the fold, which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the tool's function is distinct enough among the siblings that this is not a major gap.

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