navigate_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses one non-obvious behavior: reload ignores cache. However, it does not mention what happens when there is no history entry, whether navigation waits for page load, or any prerequisites like an active browser session. It is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by an Args line that maps directly to the parameter. There is no filler, and the most important behavioral nuance (cache ignored on reload) is efficiently included.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an enum and an output schema, the description covers the action semantics and the one non-obvious behavior. No required invocation detail is missing. The tool is simple enough that this is complete.

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%, but the description explicitly enumerates the single parameter's allowed values: 'back', 'forward', and 'reload'. It adds meaning beyond the enum by noting that reload ignores cache. This is sufficient compensation for such a simple parameter.

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: "Move within browser navigation history, or reload the current page." This distinguishes it from sibling tools like navigate, which would handle new URL navigation, and close_browser/start_browser. The action list of back/forward/reload adds precision.

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 makes the tool's scope explicit by focusing on browser history movement and current-page reload. It implies the tool is for history/reload actions rather than general navigation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. This is clear context without formal when/where-not guidance.

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