history

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it 'Waits for the page to load', returns the new URL and title, warns about stale element refs requiring recapture, and notes that refresh can reset unsaved form input. These are important behavioral details that go beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Three sentences, each front-loaded with essential information: first sentence lists actions with analogies, second gives alternate tool, third warns about side effects. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers actions, return values (new URL and title), side effects (stale refs, form reset), and alternative tool. It could mention that it only works within the current tab's history or any limitations on forward navigation, but it's largely sufficient.

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% and the enum values are fully described in the schema. The description lists the same three actions, adding no new syntax or format details, so baseline would be 3. However, it provides contextual analogies ('like the Back button') that may slightly aid understanding, warranting a 4 given the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

States specific actions (back, forward, refresh) with analogies to browser buttons, making the purpose immediately clear. It doesn't differentiate itself from all siblings like get_current_url in the description, but the action enumeration and reference to navigate provide context.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (back/forward/refresh navigation) and provides an alternative ('To open a specific URL, use navigate instead'). This covers the main routing decision, though it doesn't mention other siblings like get_current_url or press_key alternatives.

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