Scroll browser page

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the operation is 'typed', 'exposes no arbitrary JavaScript', and 'remains serialized within the session.' This reassures the agent about safety and execution ordering, though it does not mention side effects like scroll-triggered lazy loading or clamped deltas. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds parameter guidance and a safety note. Every clause contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward pixel-scroll operation, covering purpose, main parameters, and safety characteristics, and an output schema exists. However, it does not mention timeout behavior, how the scroll is clamped, or how this tool differs from browser_scroll_into_view, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent selecting among similar browser tools.

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 is responsible for explaining parameters, but it only covers deltaX and deltaY briefly. It does not explain sessionId, pageId, or timeoutMs semantics beyond the phrase 'explicitly addressed page', leaving required parameters partially unexplained.

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 a page by deltaX/deltaY pixel values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_scroll_into_view by specifying bounded integer deltas rather than element-based scrolling. The verb 'Scroll' plus the explicit resource ('an explicitly addressed page') and mechanism ('by bounded integer pixel deltas') make the purpose precise and differentiated.

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 implies usage for precise pixel-based scrolling and provides guidance on which delta parameter controls which axis, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over browser_scroll_into_view or other browsing tools. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the when-to-use decision mostly inferred.

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