browser_navigate_back

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of returning a snapshot after navigating, but does not mention potential errors (e.g., no previous page) or side effects on the current page state. The disclosed information is minimal but covers the primary outcome.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and its result with no wasted words. It is optimally concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 simple navigation-back tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what it does and what it returns. It lacks edge-case details, but these are not critical for a basic action. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Navigate back') and the specific resource ('the previous page'), and adds the output ('return a snapshot'). It is distinct from siblings like browser_navigate (which goes to a URL) and browser_tabs (which manages tabs), making its purpose 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the name and description: to go back in history. This is adequate for a simple action, but there is no comparison to other navigation tools or mention of when not to use it (e.g., if at the first page).

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