navigate_back

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what happens if there's no history to go back to, whether it's idempotent, or any error conditions. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the essential action without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple navigation tool and efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 the tool's low complexity (simple navigation action) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or prerequisites, which could be important for robust usage in a browser automation context.

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 input schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, but the tool likely operates without requiring detailed parameter semantics for this action. The description doesn't add parameter details, but for a tool with zero parameters expected, this is acceptable, as the schema already defines the required 'session_id'.

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 ('Go back') and the resource ('current tab's history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from its sibling 'navigate_forward', but it's specific enough to avoid being vague or tautological.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'navigate_forward' or 'navigate_to', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring browser history to be available. It implies usage in a browser context but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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