browser_go_back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, error conditions (e.g., no history), session requirements, or what happens on failure. This is a clear gap for a mutating operation.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the structure is optimally front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of return values, errors, or session handling, which leaves some gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool in all scenarios.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the sessionId parameter with its description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Navigate back in browser history' uses a specific verb ('navigate back') and resource ('browser history'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_go_forward. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 implies the usage context (when you want to go back in history) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is minimally sufficient but lacks direction.

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