chrome_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 the read-only nature, the local SQLite data source, and that no page is opened. However, it does not mention if Chrome needs to be closed or if history is limited to recent entries.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical clarification. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., what fields are returned), which could be important for an agent to process results correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100% and the description adds meaning by explaining the tool's action (list/search) and constraints (read-only). It provides sufficient context beyond the empty schema.

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 verb ('lists or searches') and resource ('user's Google Chrome browsing history'), and distinguishes from the similar sibling tool 'safari_history' by specifying Chrome. The read-only and no-page-open notes add clarity.

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 implies a read-only context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer its usage from the context of sibling tools.

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