Go back

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'navigates back' is consistent. It adds the specific outcome 'returns the new page state with fresh refs', which is useful but does not disclose potential failures (e.g., empty history) or side effects beyond navigation. No contradiction with annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action ('navigates back') and then states the return value. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the essence: it navigates and returns new state. However, without an output schema or annotations for failure modes, it does not mention behavior when history is empty, whether it waits for page load, or any timing aspects. For a simple browser action this is adequate but could include a caution about history limits.

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 coverage is 100% for sessionId, and the description adds no extra detail about the parameter beyond the schema's own description. This is the baseline for a fully documented 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?

The description clearly states the action 'navigates back in history' and the resource 'page state', which distinguishes it from generic navigation like browser_navigate. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so its distinctiveness relies on the verb phrase 'go back' which is clear enough.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus others like browser_navigate, browser_click, or browser_scroll. It lacks context about typical scenarios (e.g., after following links) and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., existence of history).

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