restore_navigation_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a real navigation occurs via CDP, but says nothing about side effects, whether it requires an active session, timing/await behavior, or failure modes when the index is invalid.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no waste. It is brief rather than padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing detail rather than being optimally information-dense.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call this reliably. At minimum it should tie the index to entries from get_navigation_history and note that sessionId identifies the target session.

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 description coverage is 0% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely implies the 'index' parameter ('a specific entry') and says nothing about sessionId, its required status, or valid index ranges.

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 (Restore) and resource (navigation history entry) and even names the underlying CDP method, Page.navigateToHistoryEntry. It is clearly distinguishable from get_navigation_history, though it never explicitly references that sibling as the way to obtain the entry index.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious workflow (call get_navigation_history first to find an index). The agent must infer that the tool pairs with get_navigation_history.

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