back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Browser back.' only states the action without describing any side effects (e.g., history stack behavior, session impact, or state changes). It does not go beyond the bare action, leaving behavioral expectations underspecified.

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 concise with minimal words, fitting the simple action. There is no wasted text. However, it lacks any structural elements like front-loading key constraints, though for such a short description that is not a significant drawback.

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 2 optional parameters with full schema coverage, but the description provides no context about navigation history behavior, session implications, or expected outcomes. There is no output schema, so the agent is left without understanding return values or side effects. For a simple action, this might barely suffice, but it leaves gaps for an agent needing to make informed calls.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (lease and session). The description adds nothing about parameters or their semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra meaning is provided.

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 'Browser back.' clearly indicates a navigation action (going back in browser history) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes implicitly from siblings like 'forward' and 'reload' via its verb, but does not explicitly name them. The purpose is clear, but slightly terse.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for use, exclusions, or contexts where other navigation tools would be more appropriate. The description provides zero usage direction.

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