scroll

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema, notably '1 tick ≈ 80% viewport' and 'ref scrolls that element's container'. Since there are no annotations, these details matter. However, the description is truncated and leaves the behavior of other modes like y, intoView, and frameId partially unexplained.

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 visible text is compact and front-loaded with the main action, but it is visibly truncated ('— or y:<p…'). This makes the structure incomplete and prevents it from being cleanly assessable as a finished, well-formed definition.

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?

The tool has six optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description carries a heavy burden. The description covers only a subset of usage modes, omits combination semantics, and is cut off, leaving an agent without enough information to reliably construct every valid call.

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 only 33%, so the description has to compensate. It does by explaining the meaning of direction+amount as ticks, the approximate viewport proportion, and the ref parameter's container-scrolling behavior. It also begins to explain the y parameter, adding real semantic value over the bare 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 identifies the verb and resource by starting with 'Scroll:' and then demonstrating usage patterns. It distinguishes the tool's basic function, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like navigate or click.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as navigate, explore_page, or click. The description is purely syntax-oriented and does not state selection criteria or excluded cases.

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