scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers important runtime behavior: it reports position, detects content growth via scrollHeight delta (useful for lazy-loaded content), and handles settle timing. It does not mention potential side effects or failure modes, but for a scrolling action this is reasonably 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds information: scope, behavioral reports, lazy-load detection, settle handling, and container-specific usage. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers target selection, container behavior, and what is reported, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It could add explicit return structure or failure behavior, but those would be improvements rather than critical 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between container_ref/container_selector and direction for scrolling inside a container, which clarifies parameter combinations not fully spelled out in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scroll') and explicitly names the resources it operates on: page, container, and element. It further distinguishes itself by mentioning position reporting, content-growth detection, and settle timing, which separates it from navigation or page-view siblings.

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 gives clear operational context: use ref/selector to scroll into view, direction for page scrolling, and container_ref/container_selector plus direction for container scrolling. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage context is clearly implied.

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