browser_go_back

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: nothing about what happens when there is no prior history, whether it errors, or whether it waits for the page to load. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing beyond them.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing needs trimming.

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 one-parameter, output-schema-less navigation tool the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits edge-case behavior (no back entry available, failure signalling) that an agent would need before calling it in a history-dependent flow.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter session_id is already documented in the schema as 'Session ID returned by browser_navigate'. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 to the previous page in the browser history.' This distinguishes it implicitly from browser_go_forward and browser_navigate. However, it never names those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement – an agent can infer it is used when it wants to return to a prior page. It gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., use browser_navigate or browser_go_forward instead).

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