firefox_back

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Go back', omitting details such as what happens if there is no browsing history, whether it throws an error, or if it requires the tab to have navigated previously. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structured information such as parameter explanation or behavioral notes. While concise, it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 simple navigation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not cover edge cases (e.g., no history) or explain the return value (e.g., success/failure). Slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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 one parameter has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter 'sessionTabId' beyond the schema's description (which contains a typo 'fire-fodex'). The baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.

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 'Go back in a Firefox tab' clearly states the action (go back) and resource (Firefox tab). It is distinguishable from sibling 'firefox_forward' which does the opposite. However, it lacks specificity about browsing history, making it slightly less than a perfect 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., firefox_forward, firefox_navigate). There are no prerequisites or warnings about when not to use it (e.g., no history). This forces the agent to infer usage context.

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