back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about what happens at the start of history, whether it blocks until the page loads, whether it affects browser history state, or how it interacts with the current tab. Two words is not enough for a navigation-state mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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 words are technically waste-free but amount to under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded purpose sentence or operational detail to compress down to this length.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioural detail, the definition leaves the agent unable to predict return values, failure modes, or load-waiting semantics for a history-mutating browser action. Nothing beyond the name and tab param is communicated.

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 single optional 'tab' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('tab id, defaults to current'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline case rather than a strength.

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 phrase 'History back' restates the tool name 'back' with almost no additional specification. Against siblings like 'forward' and 'reload' it weakly implies browser back-navigation, but an agent gets no verb+resource statement and cannot be certain whether this moves a page history pointer, a tab list, or something else.

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 statement of when to use this instead of 'forward', 'reload', 'navigate', or 'switch_tab'. The agent must infer the alternative and the selection condition entirely from the tool name.

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