scroll_to_element

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 states the action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether scrolling is smooth or instant), error handling (e.g., if the element doesn't exist), or performance implications. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's mutation nature (scrolling implies UI change), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what happens on failure or the visual effect, leaving gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior fully.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Element ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as explaining what constitutes a valid ID or how to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Scroll') and target ('the app to show an element'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'highlight_element' or 'inspect_element', which also involve element interaction but with different purposes.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an element ID from 'get_element_by_id'), exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among sibling tools that manipulate elements.

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