Scroll page element into view

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

The annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness, and the description adds important behavioral constraints: it only accepts locators, never arbitrary JavaScript or coordinates. It does not discuss failure modes or visibility guarantees in detail, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant filler. The usage guidance and constraint are expressed in the same concise description.

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 annotations, output schema, and reasonably self-describing sibling tool names, the description is mostly complete for a focused scrolling tool. It could improve by mentioning the element ref parameter or timeout behavior, but the core workflow is clear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only explains the locator concept and the 'explicitly addressed page' idea. It does not explain optional parameters such as ref or timeoutMs, nor does it clarify how sessionId and pageId combine to address the page.

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 a semantic or CSS locator into the viewport of a specific page. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by emphasizing that the target is a locator and that arbitrary JavaScript and coordinates are never accepted.

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 a concrete use context: use before inspection or interaction when an off-screen target must become visible. It does not explicitly name or contrast alternative browsing tools such as browser_scroll, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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