chromium_parse_history_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Parse' without addressing whether the tool is read-only, requires the browser to be closed, or handles locked or encrypted profiles. The typical path example adds some context, but significant behavioral gaps remain (e.g., side effects, prerequisites).

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core action and resource, includes a useful path example, and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks context on important prerequisites (e.g., profile must not be in use, chrome version compatibility) and any limitations (e.g., whether it only reads SQLite files or handles encrypted history). It is adequate but not rich enough for a complex parsing tool.

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%, so the parameters (url, limit, title, profile_path) are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating the profile path example, which is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool parses Chromium browsing history records from a browser profile, using a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('history records'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that parse other data types (bookmarks, cookies, etc.) or from Firefox history parsing.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'Chromium' and giving a typical profile path, which implies the tool is for use with Chromium-based browsers and for history records specifically. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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