scroll_into_view

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 only states the basic action without explaining how the scrolling is performed (e.g., scrollIntoView alignment behavior), what happens when the element is not found, or whether any side effects occur. This is a minimal statement that lacks behavioral depth.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. The structure is clean and easy to scan.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but still misses key operational details such as behavior when the element is absent, scrolling alignment, and relation to the broader scrolling toolkit. The description is adequate only for the simplest interpretation and leaves several practical questions unanswered.

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 by explaining the selector parameter. It does not clarify whether the selector is a CSS selector, XPath, or some other format, nor does it provide usage examples. The parameter name 'selector' is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema field itself.

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 specific verb ('Scroll') and a resource ('an element'), which clarifies that this tool scrolls a particular element into view rather than simply scrolling the page. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like scroll_to_top or scroll_to_bottom, but the resource target is clear enough for basic differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scroll_up, scroll_down, scroll_to_top, or scroll_to_bottom. There is no mention of selector-based element targeting or context like 'use this when you need to bring a specific element into the viewport.' This leaves the agent to infer the intended use case.

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