browser_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Retrieve' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about whether history is per-tab or global, whether it is capped/truncated, or whether any state is affected. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is named first and the secondary detail ('current index') follows. Nothing needs to be cut.

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 output schema, the description must cover the return shape, and it only gestures at it ('entries and current index') without saying what an entry contains or the scope of the history. For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but the return-value ambiguity is a real gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming the tool is parameterless.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('tab navigation history entries and current index'), so the agent knows the tool returns browsing history rather than navigating it. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like browser_list_tabs, browser_back, or browser_forward, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related needs (e.g. navigating vs. inspecting history). Usage is only implied by the word 'Retrieve'. For a read-only inspection tool in a 60+ tool browser suite, this leaves routing entirely to inference.

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