Back

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing: no statement of what happens at the start of history, whether it is a navigation/mutation, what the resulting page state is, or how it interacts with the multi-slot/agent model described in the schema.

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 are technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the sentence does not front-load any actionable information and nothing meaningful is conveyed.

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 history-navigation action with no annotations and no output schema, the agent gets no information about behavior, side effects, or edge cases. The rich schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description leaves the actual behavior of "back" unexplained.

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 all six parameters (slot, tab, read, agent, summary, multiSlot) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage 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" restates the tool name and title (Back) without adding specificity. It does imply browser-history navigation, but it names no resource, no scope, and does not distinguish itself from the sibling browser_forward beyond the obvious opposite direction.

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_forward, browser_navigate, or browser_tab_select, nor any prerequisite such as having history to go back to. The agent must infer the condition entirely.

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