Scroll the page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose how far a single scroll moves (viewport, page, pixel amount), whether it waits for lazy content, or whether it ever fails or returns anything. For a browser-interaction tool with zero structured behavioral hints, this is a substantial gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here costs information rather than saving it.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should compensate but does not. It omits scroll magnitude, return behavior, and any interaction with dynamic content, so an agent cannot predict the effect of invoking it.

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?

The single 'where' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about it. The enum values (down/up/top/bottom) are largely self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify semantics such as whether 'down' scrolls by a viewport or a small increment.

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?

States a specific verb (scroll) and resource (the active page), which is clear enough to separate it from siblings like browser_click or browser_read. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other navigation-type siblings or explain the scope of 'active page' vs. tabs/windows.

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 on when to scroll versus using browser_navigate, browser_read, or select_region. There are no prerequisites or exclusions given, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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