browser_navigate_back

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutable, open-ended, and potentially destructive operation. The description adds context by specifying it affects browser navigation (going back), which aligns with annotations but doesn't elaborate on risks like losing unsaved data or navigation limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence ('Go back to the previous page') that is front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is complete enough for basic understanding. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., page reloads, history dependence) or error cases, though annotations cover safety aspects.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's action. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates for the lack of parameters by being clear about the tool's function.

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' clearly states the action (go back) and the resource (previous page), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'browser_navigate' (which goes to a new page) and 'browser_close' (which closes the browser/tab).

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 context (when you want to return to a previous page in browser navigation), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this only works within a browsing session history or mention sibling tools like 'browser_navigate' for forward navigation.

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