browser_navigate_back

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. '后退' gives no information about what happens when invoked, such as navigating to the previous page, whether it requires a loaded page, or any side effects.

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 under-specified: a single word '后退' is not an appropriately sized description. It lacks the minimal phrase 'navigate back in browser history' that would make it useful. This is not concise; it is incomplete.

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 tool's simplicity, a minimal description like 'Navigate to the previous page in browser history' would suffice. The actual description provides no context about the action, making it inadequate even for a straightforward navigation tool.

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 single parameter _agent_id is fully documented in the input schema with a clear Chinese description about isolation keys. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles the semantics.

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 '后退' ('go back') essentially restates the tool name 'browser_navigate_back'. It does not specify a verb+resource beyond what the name already implies, and it fails to distinguish itself from siblings like browser_navigate_forward.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_navigate_forward or browser_navigate. No context is provided about browsing history or applicable scenarios.

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