all the tools

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. While 'Navigate back in browser history' clearly indicates a browser interaction, it doesn't specify what happens if there's no history to go back to, whether this requires an active browser session, or any error conditions. The description provides basic intent but lacks operational details.

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, perfectly focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple navigation tool.

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 simple navigation tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic functionality but lacks important contextual details. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether this affects browser state, or what the return value might be. The description is complete enough to understand the tool's purpose but not its full operational behavior.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this. No additional parameter information is 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 specific action ('Navigate back') and the target resource ('in browser history'), using precise verb+resource language. It effectively distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'playwright_go_forward' by specifying the opposite direction in browser navigation.

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 browser history has a previous page to navigate to) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_go_forward' or other navigation methods. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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