browser_back

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the unsaved-changes guard ('Buddy stays the first time and says so'), the return value (current tab location or a no-previous-page signal), and the natural follow-up call. An agent knows the tool may not actually navigate on the first attempt, which is non-obvious and critical to correct handling.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause and the subsequent sentences cover the edge case and the return/follow-up. The phrase 'like a browser's back button' slightly restates the verb, but everything else 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what is returned and what the failure mode looks like. For a zero-argument, annotation-free navigation tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The text correctly implies no arguments are needed, matching the empty schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb (navigate back) on a specific resource (the current tab of the background browser) and anchors it to a familiar mental model (a browser's back button). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like browser_open, browser_tabs, and browser_read, which open, list, or read rather than navigate history.

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 browser-navigation context is clear and the description explicitly sequences the next action: 'then call browser_read' once the move completes. It does not name an alternative for the no-history case (e.g., what to do if there is no previous page beyond being told so), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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