Go Back

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint: true), description adds context: 'history navigation can reissue requests and expose credential-bearing page state.' This warns about side effects not obvious from annotations alone. Good addition.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences plus two labeled points (preconditions, next, sensitivity). Every sentence adds distinct value. Purpose is immediately clear in the first words.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and behavioral effects well, but completely omits parameter documentation. Output schema exists but not shown. Given the tool's simplicity and available annotations, the description is adequate but not fully self-contained due to missing param info.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description does not mention or explain timeoutMs or waitUntil. As the tool has two parameters, this is a critical gap; the agent has no guidance on using them effectively.

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?

Description clearly states the specific use case: 'reproduce a redirect, back-button state bug, or single-page application history issue.' It provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from forward navigation implicitly.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when history navigation is specifically needed'), preconditions ('active page with a previous history entry required'), and post-use guidance ('inspect state and relevant network events'). Could be improved by explicitly naming alternatives like browser_go_forward or browser_navigate.

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