ff_scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it scrolls a real Firefox tab and auto-detects inner-scroll containers, but fails to describe what happens if both 'y' and 'selector' are provided, what constitutes a successful scroll, or any potential side effects. The bridge add-on requirement is noted but lacks detail.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundant information. The main action is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly better structured by separating the two usage modes more clearly.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not specify required parameters, default behaviors, error scenarios, or return values. The tool appears to have two distinct modes but the description leaves ambiguity about parameter combinations.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds context for 'y' (by pixels) and 'selector' (element via selector) but does not explain 'tabId' or the interaction between parameters. It does not compensate enough for the missing schema descriptions.

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 two distinct scroll operations (by pixels with auto-detect of inner-scroll containers, or scroll element into view via selector) and specifies that it operates on a real Firefox instance with a bridge add-on. This effectively distinguishes it from generic scroll tools like the sibling 'scroll'.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'needs the bridge add-on loaded' but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scroll' or other sibling tools. No exclusions or contextual hints are given.

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