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 of behavioral disclosure, and "Go back" discloses nothing: no mention of history exhaustion, whether it waits for load, or whether the page state is preserved. For an action tool with zero annotation coverage this is a serious gap.

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 words is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no front-loaded statement of effect, scope, or preconditions to compress. Nothing here earns its place because there is essentially nothing here.

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 six parameters, a required slot, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent needs at least the effect and failure mode of a history-back action. The description supplies neither, leaving it incomplete for even a simple navigation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the six parameters (slot, tab, read, agent, summary, multiSlot) are already fully documented in the schema; the description adds nothing but is not required to. Baseline 3 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?

"Go back" states a navigational verb but never names the resource; the agent must infer from the tool name browser_back that this steps back through page history rather than, say, going back a form step or a tab. It is distinguishable from browser_forward by common sense, but the description itself contributes almost nothing beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus browser_navigate, browser_forward, browser_reload, or browser_tab_select, nor any note about behavior when no history exists. The agent must guess entirely from the name.

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