browser_back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior and the prerequisite, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions (e.g., no history), or what happens if the session is invalid. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose and prerequisite. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema and misses a parameter, so it's not perfectly structured, but overall it is concise and to the point.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are likely covered. The description includes the key prerequisite and the main behavior, but the missing tab_id parameter and lack of edge-case information leave it incomplete for a tool with two optional parameters.

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 has two parameters (tab_id, session_name) with no descriptions. The description only explains session_name in the Args section and completely omits tab_id, leading to incomplete parameter guidance. Given 0% schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 specific action ('Navigate back in browser history') with a helpful analogy ('like clicking the Back button'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like browser_go by focusing on backward navigation.

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 includes an explicit prerequisite ('browser_open and browser_go must have been called first'), which provides clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it's slightly shy of a 5.

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