scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes side effects ('modifies DOM scroll position'), prerequisites ('requires an active Chrome tab with content'), and return values ('scroll completion confirmation'). However, it doesn't mention potential failures (e.g., what happens if selector isn't found beyond 'fails'), rate limits, or detailed error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 front-loaded with core functionality in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for side effects, prerequisites, returns, usage, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and alternatives well. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return values (e.g., what 'completion confirmation' entails) or error cases, slightly limiting completeness for an agent's full understanding.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly with constraints, interactions, and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the three scrolling methods (pixel offset, viewport pages, CSS selector) but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('scrolls') and resources ('page'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it modifies DOM scroll position. It explicitly mentions three scrolling methods (pixel offset, viewport pages, CSS selector), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated from tools like 'click_element' or 'evaluate_js'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to navigate within long pages or bring elements into view') and names two alternatives ('click_element' to trigger scroll by clicking, 'evaluate_js' for custom scroll logic'). This gives clear context for choosing this tool over siblings, addressing both use cases and exclusions.

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