browser_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that the action applies to the active tab, but it does not explain load-waiting behavior, unsaved-state impacts, or failure handling.

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. It communicates the core action and scope efficiently.

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 two-parameter browser tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely complete enough to support correct invocation. It omits some usage routing and side-effect context, but those gaps are modest given the structured data available.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the action values but adds no further meaning, especially for the snapshot parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific navigation actions (back, forward, reload) and scopes them to the active tab, so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as browser_navigate or browser_tabs, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like browser_navigate or browser_tabs. The action enum implies usage, but the agent must infer the routing decision.

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