browser_get_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function without mentioning whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, modifies data, or has rate limits. This leaves the agent uninformed about important constraints.

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 long, front-loads the primary action, and uses a bulleted question format for quick comprehension. Every word adds value with no redundancy or 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description only hints at output through questions. It does not describe the return format, error handling, or limitations (e.g., supported SQLite versions). For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds overarching context about parsing history and downloads, but does not enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It is adequate but not additive.

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 action 'parse browser history and downloads' and specifies the resource (Edge, Chrome, or Firefox). It also lists concrete questions it answers, making the purpose highly specific and distinguishable from sibling tools which focus on other forensics tasks.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or how it compares to alternatives. Its uniqueness among siblings implies a clear context, but explicit guidance is missing.

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