scroll_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning behavior such as whether the scroll is smooth or instant, whether it waits for page stability, how the 'amount' parameter interacts with viewport behavior, or any side effects. This is a significant gap even for a simple scroll tool.

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, concise sentence: 'Scroll the page in specified direction'. No filler words, front-loaded verb, and it is efficient for a simple tool. It could arguably be more detailed, but as a concise statement it earns full marks.

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 full schema coverage, the description is basic but sufficient to convey the core operation. However, it lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and information about edge cases (e.g., horizontal scroll support), making it adequate but not complete. The absence of annotations and output schema further limits completeness.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (direction with enum values, amount with default and unit), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the 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 clearly states the action ('Scroll') and the target ('the page'), with a qualifier 'in specified direction' that outlines the core purpose. It is sufficiently specific and distinguishes from sibling navigation tools like navigate_browser, though it lacks explicit mention of scrolling to top/bottom or pixel-based control, which are captured in the schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as navigate_browser or execute_atomic_action. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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