scroll_to

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It references window.scrollTo but doesn't disclose behaviors like smooth vs instant scrolling, whether 0,0 is top-left origin, units of the coordinates (pixels), or any edge cases. The '(0, 500)' example and the alias to window.scrollTo provide some hint but are thin.

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 concise sentence with an illustrative example, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately brief for a simple scroll operation, though slightly terse.

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 that mutates the viewport with two undocumented parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It doesn't define coordinates, origins, or behavior, and with multiple scroll siblings present, it leaves the agent guessing about which operation is appropriate.

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%, and the description does not meaningfully explain x and y parameters. The example '(0, 500)' hints they are coordinate values, but units (pixels), coordinate origin (top-left), and whether they are relative or absolute are unspecified. The description does not compensate for the zero schema 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 says '滚动页面视口到坐标 (window.scrollTo)' (scroll the page viewport to coordinates), which states the purpose with a verb and resource. It refers to window.scrollTo for clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tools scroll_into_view and scroll_wheel, which are clearly alternative scrolling methods, so differentiation is absent.

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 use this tool versus scroll_into_view (scroll to element) or scroll_wheel (incremental scroll). With multiple scrolling siblings available, there's a notable gap explaining the distinction (absolute-to-coordinates vs element-targeted vs incremental). Usage context is only implied by the example.

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