neuron_scroll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return values (scroll position, bottom-reached flag) and the directional convention. But it remains silent on failure behavior (invalid selector, invalid tabId), side effects of smooth scrolling, and how scrolling interacts with nested scroll containers. It covers the happy path but not risky or edge-case behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences deliver the action, the direction convention, the two operational modes, and the return value. Every clause earns its place, and the most decision-relevant detail (positive = down) is front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema properties.

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 of this complexity, the description covers the core contract well: what is scrolled, how direction works, the override relationship, and what it returns — which compensates for the absence of an output schema. The only notable gap is failure semantics (unresolved selector, invalid tab), and given the breadth of sibling interaction tools, a sentence on error handling would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema documents all five parameters, earning the baseline 3. The description marginally reinforces deltaY's direction semantics and the selector's override behavior, but it does not add meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already state, nor does it explain the default of 600px.

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 names a specific verb ('scroll') with two clear target modes: the page by pixel offset and a CSS selector into view. The direction convention ('positive = down') and return payload are stated upfront, making the tool clearly distinguishable from interaction siblings like neuron_click, neuron_navigate, and neuron_query_dom.

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?

Usage context is implied effectively: pixel-scroll for free scrolling and selector-scroll for targeted element visibility, with the schema noting the selector overrides deltas. However, the description never explicitly names alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use neuron_navigate for page changes' or 'use neuron_query_dom to inspect without scrolling'), so an agent must infer when this tool is and isn't appropriate.

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