manage_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that 'back' and 'forward' have no useful effect at history boundaries, that 'reload' ignores the browser cache, and that operations can trigger page loads, redirects, and navigation events. It also explains the return behavior for each action and recommends verification via 'get_page_info'.

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 long but every section earns its place: action semantics, return values, side-effect warnings, and tool selection guidance. It is well-organized with clear headings and front-loaded purpose, avoiding redundant filler.

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 description is fully complete for a tool with one parameter and an output schema. It covers all actions, return semantics, side effects, boundary behavior, and when to use alternative tools, leaving no significant gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 fully explain the single parameter. It does, with a detailed breakdown of each enum value: 'back', 'forward', 'reload', and 'list'. The description adds meaning beyond the bare enum, including effect, boundary behavior, cache handling, and return format.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Navigate through the current browser history, reload the current page, or list the current browser history.' It also distinguishes itself from the 'navigate' tool by explicitly stating that 'navigate' is for arbitrary URLs, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 an explicit 'Tool selection' section with clear routing rules: arbitrary URL -> navigate, previous/next history entry -> this tool, refresh -> reload, list -> list. It also advises using 'get_page_info' afterward to verify the resulting URL or title, giving concrete post-use guidance.

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