playwright_go_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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Navigate back in browser history' implies a read-only navigation action, it doesn't specify whether this requires an active browser context, what happens if there's no history to go back to (e.g., error behavior), or if it affects page state. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with browser state.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately understandable without any unnecessary elaboration.

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 that this is a browser interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, new page URL), error conditions, or dependencies like requiring an active Playwright session. For a tool that likely changes browser state, more behavioral context is needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. This meets the baseline expectation for tools without parameters.

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 browser history' clearly states the action (navigate back) and the resource (browser history), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'playwright_go_forward', which would be the natural alternative for forward navigation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'playwright_go_forward' or 'playwright_navigate', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active browser session or being on a page with history. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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