browser_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key constraint: the tool only performs the action if the supplied URL exactly matches and is same-origin. However, it does not disclose what happens when the condition fails (error, no-op), nor does it mention any side effects like changing the history stack. The single constraint is useful but incomplete.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the core action and constraint. It is concise and avoids redundancy. However, it could be restructured to also cover parameter roles or usage context without losing brevity. A slightly expanded version would improve completeness while maintaining conciseness.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is extremely brief and does not explain return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., a page must be loaded), or the effect of the tool on browser state. Given the tool's simplicity, a short description is acceptable, but it lacks essential details for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'expected_url' implicitly but does not explain the meaning or allowed values of 'direction' (back/forward), the role of 'collaboration_id', or the format constraints for 'expected_url'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's enum and patterns.

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's purpose: navigating browser history back or forward. The condition 'only when the caller supplies the exact expected same-origin URL' adds specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_navigate (which goes to a new URL) and browser_reload (reloads current page). The verb 'go back or forward' paired with 'browser history' is clear, though slightly terse.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or compare with sibling tools such as browser_navigate, browser_reload, or browser_scroll. The implied usage (back/forward navigation) is clear but lacks any exclusionary context.

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