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 does so well. It discloses that back/forward have no effect without history entries, that reload bypasses the browser cache, and that operations can trigger page loads requiring a wait.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Notes sections. The only minor issue is slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the 'Use this tool...' paragraph, but it remains appropriately sized for a multi-action tool.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers invocation, parameter behavior, return values, side effects, and alternatives. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call the tool 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?

The schema provides only an enum with no descriptions, but the description fully documents each action value: back, forward, reload, and list. It explains the effect of each action and the return behavior, completely compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clear verb and resource: navigate the current browser history, reload the current page, or list history. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the 'navigate' tool by saying that tool is for arbitrary URLs.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: for relative history navigation or displaying current history. It also gives an alternative: use the 'navigate' tool for arbitrary URLs, which is clear and actionable.

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