browser_go_back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action without mentioning state-changing effects, error conditions (e.g., no previous page), or implications like page unload or form data loss. This is a navigation action that modifies browser state, so more transparency is needed.

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, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It gets straight to the point, which is ideal for such a simple tool. Front-loaded with the verb 'Go back', it is highly efficient.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is mostly sufficient. It clearly explains the action. However, it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., failure when at the first page) and does not mention that this is a state-changing navigation operation. Still, for this simple tool, the description is largely complete.

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 is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description correctly avoids adding nonexistent parameter details.

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 'Go back to the previous page' uses a specific verb ('go back') and resource ('previous page') that clearly identifies the browser history navigation action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_go_forward (opposite direction) and browser_navigate (URL-specific), making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage: when the agent needs to return to the previous page in browser history. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mentions alternatives (e.g., browser_go_forward or browser_navigate). The context is clear but lacks explicit differentiation criteria.

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