browser_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about state effects: whether reload discards unsaved state, whether back fails at history start, or what happens to the page session. Three Spanish words cannot cover a state-mutating browser tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Extremely short with no wasted words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content. It also switches to Spanish while sibling tool names and the schema are English, adding friction.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters documented, the description should be doing significant explanatory work. Instead it offers a bare action list, so an agent cannot know return behavior, failure modes, or how the tool relates to browser_navigate and browser_snapshot.

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 only 50%, and the description adds zero parameter meaning beyond what the enum already conveys. The one documented parameter (`snapshot`) is explained in the schema itself; the description neither reinforces it nor clarifies action semantics such as error behavior at history boundaries.

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 three concrete actions (back, forward, reload) that map to browser history navigation, so the intent is inferable. But it is essentially a restatement of the `action` enum and never distinguishes this tool from siblings like browser_navigate, leaving the agent to infer the boundary itself.

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 on when to use this versus browser_navigate, no mention of whether history entries must exist, and no exclusion conditions. The agent must guess whether 'reload' here differs from a navigate-to-current-URL.

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