navigation_back

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral constraint: object IDs are local to a profile and must not be reused elsewhere. It does not say what happens when there is no prior history entry or whether the navigation waits for load, which are relevant for an unannotated mutation 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?

Two tight sentences: the action first, then the critical profile-scoping constraint. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence could be shortened slightly.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the key calling constraint (profile_id sourcing and locality). Only edge-case behavior (no prior history) is missing, which is minor for a 2-parameter tool.

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 describes tab_id but leaves profile_id undocumented, so the description's instruction to obtain profile_id from profiles_list and its note that IDs are profile-local add genuine meaning beyond the schema. This largely compensates for the 50% coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Navigate back in browser history for a tab'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like navigation_forward or navigation_reload. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the action 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?

It gives a prerequisite ('profile_id is required: obtain it from profiles_list'), which is real usage guidance, but it never says when to use this versus navigation_forward or when a back navigation is inappropriate (e.g., at the start of history). Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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