wavexis_dom_scroll

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Changes the page scroll position; may trigger scroll event listeners' and return format. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Three well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the core action, efficient use of words, no redundancy.

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 the presence of annotations, output schema, and siblings, the description covers side effects, return format, and a usage hint. Lacks explicit precedence when both selector and offsets are provided, but overall complete enough.

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%, but the schema itself provides parameter descriptions. The description only repeats the 'element or offset' choice without detailing parameter interplay or edge cases. Adds modest value.

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 'Scroll to an element or by a pixel offset', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like wavexis_dom_get by suggesting use of that tool for inspection.

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 advises using wavexis_dom_get to inspect positions, which provides some context, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. No guidance on when not to use.

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