browser_navigate_back

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It essentially restates the tool name and does not mention what happens when there is no previous history entry, whether navigation waits for page load, or how failures are signaled.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool. However, it is concise primarily because it nearly restates the tool name rather than adding information-dense context.

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 zero-parameter tool the core operation is stated, but completeness is limited by missing edge-case behavior and preconditions, such as what happens if history is empty or whether the current page state is preserved. No annotations or output schema exist to fill these gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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') and resource ('browser history'), making it clear this is history-back navigation rather than a URL-based navigation like browser_navigate. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the 'back' qualifier removes most ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus browser_navigate, browser_new_page, or browser_switch_page. It also omits practical preconditions such as requiring an active page or a non-empty history.

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