scroll

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether scrolling is a read-only operation, triggers events, or has side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the obvious action.

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, making it concise. However, it is overly terse and omits critical information, so it does not earn its place effectively. It could be restructured to include parameter details and usage notes without becoming verbose.

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 that there are 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify if parameters are required, how they interact (e.g., using both y and selector), or what the result of scrolling is. The agent lacks essential context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It does not: 'y' (presumably pixels) and 'selector' (CSS selector) are left undefined, and there is no explanation of defaults, constraints, or how they interact. This is inadequate for an AI agent.

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 the tool scrolls the page by pixels or scrolls an element into view, specifying two distinct use cases. While it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like ff_scroll, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to scroll by pixels vs. into view, or when to use scroll over other navigation tools). There are no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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