scroll_down

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It merely restates the action without specifying what 'amount' means (pixels? lines? percentage), whether negative values are allowed, or what happens at scroll boundaries. The agent is left uninformed about observable side effects and return values.

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 focused sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to stating the core action, making it maximally concise for such a simple tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context: units for 'amount', guidance among the many scroll siblings, and behavior at limits. An agent selecting among scroll_down, scroll_up, scroll_to_top, scroll_to_bottom, and scroll_into_view receives no explicit routing help beyond the word 'relative'.

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 the undocumented 'amount' parameter. It adds only the vague qualifier 'relative', without defining the unit, valid range, semantics of the default value, or directionality. The agent cannot confidently choose a correct value.

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 clear verb ('Scroll down') and resource (the viewport), and the phrase 'relative amount' differentiates it from absolute scroll tools like scroll_to_top and scroll_to_bottom. It is not a tautology and conveys the essential action.

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 word 'relative' implies this is for incremental scrolling rather than jumping to an absolute position, which lightly distances it from scroll_to_top/scroll_to_bottom. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer scroll_down over scroll_up, scroll_into_view, or other siblings, so the user must infer the appropriate context.

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