browser_scroll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'scroll the page' but does not disclose how scrolling works: whether it scrolls by a fixed amount, whether it scrolls to the top/bottom, what the optional 'amount' parameter does, or whether it waits for lazy content to load. The mention of 'load lazy content' hints at a side effect but doesn't specify behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other behavioral documentation.

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?

A single, focused sentence that gets straight to the point with no filler. The purpose is stated first, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the effect of omitting 'amount', the meaning of direction relative to the page, or any limits (e.g., maximum scroll distance). An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter ('direction' or 'amount'). The agent is left to infer the meaning of 'amount' and how direction interacts with scrolling. This is a complete absence of parameter guidance beyond the raw schema definitions.

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', and gives a specific purpose ('to load lazy content'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which mention scrolling, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 when to use it (when lazy content needs loading) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. For a simple scroll action this is acceptable, but there is no guidance on edge cases like scrolling within a specific container or handling dynamic content beyond the stated purpose.

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