scroll_up

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states only the basic operation and omits important context such as units, whether it scrolls the viewport or an element, boundary behavior at the top of the page, and what the result indicates. There is no annotation contradiction, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 one short, direct sentence with no filler. The relative-quantity qualifier is front-loaded and clear. While the brevity contributes to under-specification, the description itself is appropriately concise and structured.

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 simple tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally viable: the direction and relative nature are stated, and the schema provides the default. However, missing unit and scoping context means an agent cannot fully predict behavior in edge cases, especially with no annotations to compensate.

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%, and the description only adds that the amount is 'relative.' It does not explain the unit, sign convention, allowed range, or what happens when amount is omitted despite the default of 25. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema field title.

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 names the action ('scroll up') and adds the key qualifier 'by a relative amount,' which distinguishes it from absolute scroll tools like scroll_to_top and scroll_to_bottom. However, it does not explicitly state what is being scrolled (page/viewport) and only differentiates from scroll_down via direction.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose scroll_up over scroll_down, scroll_into_view, scroll_to_top, or scroll_to_bottom. The phrase 'relative amount' implies a use case but does not explicitly state when this tool is appropriate or when an alternative is better.

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