navigate_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 states the action but does not clarify side effects, such as changes to the browser's history stack, or potential failure when no prior history exists. The behavior is simple but could be more transparent.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core function and a keyboard shortcut hint without any filler. It is optimally concise for a simple navigation tool.

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?

Given the zero-parameter schema and simple action, the description is largely complete. However, it could briefly mention that the tool requires an existing session with navigable history or that it mimics a browser shortcut, which would aid agents in understanding constraints.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable since none are needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the action ('navigate back') and the scope ('in the current window's history') with a keyboard shortcut hint. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'navigate_forward' by specifying direction.

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?

The usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., navigate_forward) or prerequisites. The description does not mention conditions like requiring a window with history.

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