browser_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: history steps can trigger page loads or resubmission prompts, and there is no automatic retry. It omits error behavior (e.g., no prior entry) and whether the snapshot is returned as text or an identifier.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output. The warning sentences are brief and earn their place; nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the risky behavior but leaves the key call-time detail — the accepted direction values — unspecified, which is the main gap an agent would hit.

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 0% and the single parameter has no enum, so the description must define accepted values. Saying 'back or forward' hints at the domain but never states the literal strings (e.g., 'back'/'forward') or whether other values are valid, leaving ambiguity at call time.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Navigate back or forward once' plus the side effect 'read a new snapshot'. This separates it from browser_snapshot and browser_navigate reasonably well, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers it is used after navigation to step through history. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over browser_navigate or browser_open_page, and no mention of what happens when no history exists.

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