scroll

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

The description communicates the visible behavior: scrolling an element by pages in a chosen direction. Annotations supply the safety baseline, and no annotation contradiction exists, but the description adds little detail about side effects, limits of scrolling, or how the operation behaves beyond that minimal action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 fairly simple tool, the parameters are well covered by the schema and the behavior is clear enough. However, the description does not explain how to identify an element or how the scroll interacts with the app state, which would be more complete given this is an action-changing tool with no output schema.

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 schema already documents app, element_index, direction, and pages, including fractional support and the default value for pages. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the overall scroll behavior.

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 states a specific action ('Scroll'), a target ('an element'), and the key modifiers ('in a direction by a number of pages'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the action reads clearly and is unlikely to be confused with type_text, click, or drag.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of a sibling, what prerequisites exist, or what not to use it for. The only usage signal is implicit: 'if you want to scroll, use scroll'.

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