Browser MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether it waits for page load, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, or any error conditions. The reference to 'browser_docs' suggests additional documentation exists but isn't provided here.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core action ('Navigate back in history') with a brief reference to documentation. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted verbiage.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic action but lacks important context about behavior, success conditions, and integration with other browser tools. The reference to 'browser_docs' acknowledges additional documentation exists but doesn't provide it inline, leaving gaps for an AI agent trying to use this tool effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty parameter set. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for this situation is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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 verb ('Navigate back') and resource ('in history'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'browser_go_forward' by specifying direction. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other navigation tools like 'browser_navigate' or 'browser_reload' beyond the back action.

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. It references 'browser_docs' for more information, but doesn't specify when back navigation is appropriate versus other navigation methods or what prerequisites exist (e.g., requires browser history to be available).

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