browser_go_back

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing beyond the name. It does not mention potential failure modes, side effects on page state, or whether navigation is synchronous, making it impossible to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 short (three words), which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being functionally useless. It does not earn its place as a meaningful tool description, similar to the 'Process' example.

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 output schema and no annotations, yet the description fails to explain even basic context such as what 'back' means, whether it affects the current tab, or how it relates to browser history. This is wholly inadequate for successful tool selection and invocation.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (pageId and sessionId) with clear definitions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies given the high schema coverage.

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 'Navigated back.' merely restates the tool name in past tense, functioning as a tautology rather than a clear statement of the tool's purpose. It does not specify the action as an imperative or explain that it navigates to the previous page in browser history.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_go_forward or browser_navigate. There is no mention of prerequisites, history availability, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any contextual direction.

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