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, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say what happens at a history boundary (no forward entry available), whether this is a state mutation of the tab, or what the snapshot parameter actually causes — the schema mentions a 'fresh snapshot' but the description never connects to it.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral gaps remain.

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 navigation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is minimally adequate. It leaves open boundary behavior, the effect of snapshot, and whether the action can fail, all of which an agent would want before calling.

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 50%, but the undocumented parameter (direction) is a two-value enum whose meaning is self-evident, and snapshot is documented in the schema itself. The description's 'back or forward' phrase mirrors the enum without adding format or edge-case detail, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 a specific verb pair (go back/forward) and the resource (the active tab's history), which is enough to separate it from navigate, which presumably targets a URL rather than an existing history entry. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 navigate, tabs, or read, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing history entry. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'history'.

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