scout_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 accurately discloses the core behavior and its testing intent, but it does not mention whether it waits for page load, how it handles missing history, or any operational side effects. For a simple non-destructive action this is acceptable, but not richly transparent.

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?

One short sentence with a purposeful parenthetical. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's action and intent.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool: no required parameters, no output schema, and the one optional parameter is fully explained in the schema. The description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, with only minor operational details unmentioned.

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 `session` parameter is fully documented in the input schema, including guidance on concurrent multi-session use. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'go back in browser history.' It also adds a distinct purpose, 'tests back-button resilience,' which clearly separates it from navigation, crawling, and other sibling tools.

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?

The intended use case is clear: use this tool to go back in browser history and exercise back-button behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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