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 burden. It states the action but omits behavioral details such as side effects, error handling when history is empty, whether navigation waits for page load, or any permissions. It adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple action, though its brevity contributes to missing behavioral context (captured elsewhere).

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 has no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or failure modes. For a simple back-navigation action with one fully documented parameter, the description is adequate but leaves behavioral gaps that no other structured field fills.

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 100%: the single parameter 'delta' is documented with type, default, and meaning ('Number of steps backward'). The description adds no parameter information, but since the schema covers it fully, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Navigate backward') and resource ('browser history'), with a parenthetical 'back button' clarification. It distinguishes itself from browser_forward by direction, but does not name sibling tools or add scope beyond the direction. Clear enough that an agent can select it for going back.

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?

Gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus browser_forward, browser_history, or browser_navigate. Usage is only implied by the direction 'backward'. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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