scroll

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a high-level action. It does not disclose that scrolling may require a lease token, session behavior, or any side effects (e.g., whether scrolling affects the DOM or triggers events). This is a material gap given the complex parameter set.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, making it quick to parse. It could benefit from a second sentence on usage, but as a concise statement it is well-structured.

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?

For a tool with 5 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to explain the purpose of lease/session parameters, when to use target vs. dx/dy, or any potential side effects. An agent would need to infer substantial context from parameter names alone, which is inadequate.

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 schema documents all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The tool description adds only the notion of 'scroll into view' which maps to the target parameter, but it doesn't clarify the relationship between dx/dy and target. Since schema already covers parameter meaning, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'scroll' and the resource (page or target element), distinguishing it from navigation siblings like go/back/forward. It is specific enough to understand the primary action, though it doesn't mention the scroll mechanics (pixel offsets vs. into-view), so it loses a point for incompleteness.

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., go, reload, or click for in-element scrolling). There are no exclusions or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name and schema.

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