Scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait beyond the schema—'Uses trusted mouse wheel events when CDP is available'—which matters for anti-bot detection, but it omits permissions, side effects, and what is returned.

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 tightly written sentences with the primary capability front-loaded and the CDP/trusted-event caveat appended as secondary detail. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 an 11-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it says nothing about defaults (amount=600, direction=down), the trusted/smooth interplay, or how frame and tab targeting work. An agent would have to guess at most parameter behavior.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at 'page or a container' (containerRef/containerSelector), 'top/bottom' (to enum) and 'element into view' (ref/selector), but leaves amount, direction, smooth, trusted, frameId and tabId completely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb (scroll) plus its three modes: free scrolling, jumping to top/bottom, and bringing an element into view. It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings like click/type/hover, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any named alternative.

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?

Enumerating the three scroll modes implies when the tool applies (e.g., bringing an off-screen element into view), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose scroll over alternatives such as evaluate, or prerequisites like needing a target page/tab first. Usage is inference-only.

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