browser_scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: auto popup/page targeting, popup prevention via container=popup, and return fields moved/at_end. It still omits safety/read-only status, side effects, permissions, and whether scrolling is animated or instant.

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?

Three tight sentences with no wasted text. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by return values and the popup-specific caveat.

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?

Adequate for a simple scroll tool with an output schema, since return fields need not be explained in depth. However, it leaves gaps around pixels and direction semantics and does not provide alternative-tool guidance, which matters given 0% schema description coverage and no annotations.

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% for three parameters. The description explains container and auto behavior, but says nothing about the meaning or effect of pixels or direction, leaving two of three parameters without descriptive semantics beyond their enum/default values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scroll') and adds scope detail: it scrolls without visual inference, auto-selects an active popup/terms panel, otherwise the page. It clearly contrasts with visual-based siblings implicitly, but does not name scroll_until_visible or another sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides clear usage context for container=popup to prevent scrolling the underlying page, and explains the auto behavior. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of scroll_until_visible, nor does it give explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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