sleeper_back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether navigation waits for load, what happens at the start of history, or whether it affects the active tab only. A one-line restatement of the name leaves the mutation/read profile entirely opaque.

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?

Two words is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no front-loaded purpose statement, scope, or outcome. Nothing is wasted, but nothing useful is conveyed either.

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 navigation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented tab parameter, the description should at minimum define the action, target tab semantics, and failure behavior. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to invoke it 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 coverage is 50%: the profile parameter is documented as a 'Browser ID from sleeper_sessions,' but the tab parameter has no description in either schema or description. The description adds zero parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered half.

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?

"History back" essentially restates the tool name sleeper_back rather than stating a verb+resource, e.g. "navigate the current tab back one entry in browser history." An agent can infer browser-back navigation, but the description adds no distinguishing detail against siblings like sleeper_goto or sleeper_newtab.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer sleeper_goto (explicit URL) over back navigation, and no preconditions (e.g. does it fail on the first page?) are given. The agent gets no routing help at all.

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