browser_back

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it handles the most important behavioral fact. It reports the return signal: moved=false means there was nowhere to go back to. It doesn't say what happens on failure at a tab boundary or what the moved=true payload contains, but the core edge case is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The core action comes first and the edge-case signal follows, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple, single-parameter navigation tool with no output schema. The description covers the action and the one surprising return value. Only the moved=true payload and any failure modes are unstated.

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 only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage: 'tab id returned by browser_open'. The description adds nothing about the tab parameter. That is acceptable given the schema's completeness, but it earns no extra credit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Go back one page in the tab's history.' That clearly separates it from browser_goto, browser_open and browser_close. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the action: go back a page when you need to return to the previous location. No exclusion cases are given, and it never points to an alternative such as browser_goto for a forward jump. An agent can infer the right call, but nothing is stated.

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