browser_back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say what happens when there is no prior history (no-op vs. error), whether navigation waits for the page to load, or how it interacts with the currently active tab. For a history-mutating navigation action this is a notable gap.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action with the clarifying parenthetical, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

For a simple no-output tool the concept is easy to grasp, but with no annotations and an undocumented tab_id the description leaves key call-time questions unanswered (which tab, behavior at the start of history). It is under-described for even a low-complexity 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 tab_id has 0% schema description coverage and no entry in the description, so an agent cannot tell whether null means the active tab, what happens with an invalid id, or whether the operation affects another tab's history. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare property name.

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?

States a specific verb (go back) and resource (history), and parenthetically clarifies it mirrors the browser back button, so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the sibling browser_forward or otherwise acknowledge its place among the navigation tools.

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 vs. browser_forward, browser_navigate, or browser_reload_tab, and no prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the name and the parenthetical aside.

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