Go back

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a mutation that may cause side effects (e.g., losing current page state). The description simply restates the action without adding behavioral context (e.g., what happens to form inputs, whether it triggers reload, or if it fails without history). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds no significant extra value.

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, short sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any padding. Every word earns its place—'Go back' and 'previous page in the history' are precise and sufficient.

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 action with no required parameters, no output schema, and annotations that clarify its destructive nature, the description is complete. The agent can understand what the tool does and infer its effects. No additional details (e.g., return behavior or failure modes) are necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter is _meta (common metadata), which has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The parameter is universal and typically used for tracing, so omitting its explanation in the description is acceptable. The description does not need to elaborate on _meta because it is a standard parameter with well-understood semantics.

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 'Go back to the previous page in the history' uses a specific verb ('Go back') and resource ('previous page in the history'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_navigate (which goes to a URL) and browser_click (which interacts with page elements).

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 like browser_navigate (forward navigation) or browser_wait_for. The agent receives no context about prerequisites (e.g., requires history), no explicit 'when not to use' advice, and no differentiation from other navigation-related siblings.

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