Browser Navigate Back

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, but does not disclose what happens if there is no history (e.g., error or no-op), whether the navigation waits for page load, how it affects the current snapshot, or any side effects on the browser state. This is a significant gap for a navigation tool.

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 sentence with no fluff, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified: it omits crucial usage and behavioral details. While conciseness itself is good, the lack of substance makes it barely adequate. It earns its place but does not fulfill the information needs.

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 complexity (simple navigation) and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., no history), parameter semantics, or when to choose this over forward/reload. Even though an output schema exists (not shown), the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly in all situations.

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 schema has two parameters (tab and session) with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain either. It only says 'in the tab', which vaguely hints at the tab parameter but provides no meaning for what tab accepts (integer or null) or what session does. The agent cannot infer parameter usage from the description.

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 action: 'Go back one history step in the tab.' It identifies the verb (go back) and the resource (history step in the tab), which distinguishes it from siblings like browser_navigate_forward and browser_reload. However, it could be slightly more specific about the scope (e.g., which tab/session), but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention browser_navigate_forward for going forward, nor does it explain conditions like having history to go back to. The description leaves the selection entirely to the agent without any contextual cues.

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