back

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, leaving the description to explain effects: what happens if there is no history entry, whether it waits for the page to load, and whether it affects the session's forward stack. None of that is disclosed; the phrase only implies history traversal.

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 fragment with zero waste but is undersized for a tool with a required undocumented parameter. It is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so a short description could suffice, but with 0% schema coverage and thin annotations the agent still lacks the session_id meaning and the no-history failure behavior. The definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 0% for the single required session_id parameter, so the description must explain what a session is and how to obtain the ID. It says nothing about the parameter at all, leaving the agent with an undocumented required field.

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?

"Browser back button" identifies the resource (browser history) and the action (go back), so an agent can infer it navigates backward in a session's history. However it is close to a restatement of the name and does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like navigate, click, or switch_tab, which could also change the current page.

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 instead of navigate, click, or switch_tab, and no mention of preconditions such as requiring existing history. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the tool name alone.

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