browser_scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral details. It does not mention that scrolling operates on the current page, potential side effects, or how it interacts with iframes or viewport boundaries. The behavior is not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words or redundant information. It effectively communicates the core functionality in two short sentences.

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 that the schema covers all parameters and no output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details about the scope of scrolling (e.g., main page vs. iframe) and any return behavior, leaving some contextual gaps for the agent.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (direction, amount, selector), including the precedence of selector over direction. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score 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 tool scrolls the page and supports two modes: directional scrolling or scrolling to an element. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish itself from them.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like browser_back, browser_reload, or browser_iframe. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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