browser_back

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but fails to mention what happens in edge cases (e.g., empty history), whether it returns a result, or if any side effects occur. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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 with no extraneous words. It delivers the core purpose and parameter information in a single sentence and an args list, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, but the description lacks completeness. While the output schema covers return values, the description omits guidance on common use cases, error conditions, or integration with other tools, making it minimally adequate.

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 add meaning. It describes session_id as 'Browser session ID', which provides context beyond the schema's type and default. However, it does not explain how to obtain a valid session_id or its role, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb 'go back' and the resource 'browser history', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like browser_navigate, which goes to a specific URL, and browser_scroll, which scrolls the page. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives, hence a 4.

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 such as browser_navigate or when not to use it (e.g., if history is empty). The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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