browser_navigate_back

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

Annotations already flag this as destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, indicating state-changing behavior. The description confirms it navigates back, but adds no further details about potential side effects (e.g., losing form input, triggering page reloads, or breaking out of iframes). For a simple action, the description is adequate but does not enrich the behavioral picture beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's action without any fluff. Every word earns its place. The length is perfectly matched to the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward action, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what happens without leaving critical gaps. A small deduction because it omits any mention of the return value (likely none) and does not clarify edge cases like attempting to go back when there is no history.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline score of 4 fits because there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 uses a clear verb+resource structure: 'Go back to the previous page in the history'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like browser_navigate (which goes to a specific URL) and browser_click (which interacts with elements). The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implicitly the correct choice for returning to the previous page, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have browsed forward first), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like browser_tabs or browser_navigate. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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