Scroll

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral note about lazy-loaded content, but does not disclose other aspects like scroll behavior inside frames, error handling, or whether scrolling waits for content to appear. Some value beyond annotations, but limited.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary verbiage. The lazy-loading note is relevant and adds context without bloat.

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?

With 5 top-level parameters and a nested target object with many optional selectors, the two-sentence description is somewhat sparse. It explains the two main modes and one use case but does not guide on how to choose between direction and target or handle edge cases. The schema fills in parameter details, but for a tool of this complexity, more context would help an agent use it correctly.

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 80%, with direction lacking a description. The tool description says 'Scroll the page' (for direction) and 'bring a specific element into view' (for target), which adds a slight semantic distinction, but the schema already provides descriptions for target and amount. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 resources ('the page, or bring a specific element into view'), distinguishing it from sibling browser tools like navigate, click, or wait_for. The purpose is immediately understandable and specific.

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?

It provides a concrete use case: 'Useful for lazy-loaded content that is not in the DOM until it is scrolled to.' This implies when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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