Back

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the failure mode when history is exhausted and that the resulting page is shown/returned ('and show it'). It doesn't state whether the result is a rendered snapshot versus raw text, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 short sentences, action first, failure condition second, with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the phrase 'show it' hints at a returned page view but doesn't confirm what the agent receives or whether a follow-up browser_snapshot is needed. For a zero-param navigation tool this is nearly complete, with only that return-shape ambiguity remaining.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing parameter-level that needs explaining and the description correctly stays silent on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Go back one page in the current tab') and adds scope ('current tab'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like browser_navigate and browser_snapshot. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is clear context: history back-navigation, plus the failure condition ('no page to go back to') tells the agent when the call is invalid. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use browser_navigate for a fresh URL), so no explicit exclusions.

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