history

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the enum values (back, forward, reload) without explaining side effects, state changes, or the meaning of 'reload'. For example, it does not mention whether reload discards form data or requires user confirmation, which is critical for a navigation tool.

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 very short and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. However, it lacks structural elements like prerequisites or examples. It earns points for its compactness but is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise, as it omits helpful usage context.

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 simple tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent the basic operations but lacks contextual completeness regarding when to use it, what the reload action entails, or any interaction with browser state. The lack of annotations also limits the agent's ability to predict side effects.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description merely echoes the enum values without adding new meaning. 'Go back, go forward or reload' adds little beyond the parameter name and enums. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify edge cases or expected behavior for each direction.

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 tool's purpose: navigating history via back, forward, or reload. It is specific to history operations and uses a clear verb structure. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'goto', though the history-specific actions make the distinction implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'goto' or 'tabs'. The description simply lists actions without suggesting typical use cases or exclusions. This leaves the agent without enough context to choose between related navigation tools.

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