browser_go_back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and a generic 'Returns: JSON response from the API.' It does not mention edge cases (e.g., empty history), potential side effects, or whether it waits for page load. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise—two short paragraphs with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanation is direct. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is still incomplete. It lacks information about error handling, behavior when history is empty, or what the JSON response contains. With no annotations and a generic return statement, an agent has limited understanding of what to expect. More behavioral detail would be valuable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'serialno' is 'The browser device serialno, from list_devices,' which adds context about the parameter's origin. However, it provides no format or constraints, so it is only partially helpful.

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: 'Navigate back in the browser history.' It clearly conveys the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_go_forward or browser_navigate, so it misses the top score.

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 usage is implied by the action: use it to go back in browser history. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks a clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use statement.

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