babelwrap_back

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as what happens if there is no history, whether it reloads the page, or if it is destructive. The agent has no insight into side effects or error conditions.

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, which is concise, but it omits critical information. It is front-loaded but under-specified. For such a simple action, brevity is acceptable, but the lack of detail limits its usefulness.

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 is part of a browser automation suite with many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value is (despite an output schema existing), whether the navigation is instantaneous, or any side effects. An agent would need more context to use this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (session_id, compact). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance understanding.

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 'Navigate back in the browser history' clearly states it performs a browser back navigation. The verb 'navigate' and resource 'browser history' are specific, and the sibling tool babelwrap_forward provides contrast. However, the description does not elaborate on what 'back' means (e.g., one step, full history).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have a browsing session) or when not to use it (e.g., no history). The sibling tools like babelwrap_forward and babelwrap_navigate are not contrasted.

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