browser_scroll_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deltaOnly behavior and its effect on output ('(no change)' if nothing new). However, it does not mention scrolling mechanics, boundary conditions, or what happens if the page is not fully loaded.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Highly efficient.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but omits details about scrolling behavior, pixel amounts, direction options, and return format structure. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% (deltaOnly described). The description adds value by explaining deltaOnly's behavior, but it does not describe the 'pixels' or 'direction' parameters, which remain undocumented. The description partially compensates for low coverage.

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 tool's action ('Scroll and return') and the output format ('Readability-extracted Markdown view'). It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings which are different browser actions (click, type, navigate, etc.).

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?

The description implies usage for scrolling and reading content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'browser_snapshot' or 'browser_eval'. No when-not or alternative usage guidance is provided.

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