navigate_back

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one key behavioral constraint: the current automator version only supports delta=1. However, it does not mention side effects on the page, error behavior when no previous page exists, or interaction with timeout/waitForLoad parameters.

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 concise sentence with a parenthetical caveat. Every word contributes information, and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 is simple, the schema is comprehensive, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. Still, the lack of any usage or behavior context beyond the delta limitation leaves some gaps, such as what happens when there is no history to navigate back to.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it restates the delta restriction, which the schema already encodes as const:1, but does not clarify timeout or waitForLoad semantics beyond their existing descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 返回上一页 (go back to the previous page). This clearly conveys the core function and is easily distinguished from navigation siblings like navigate_to or switch_tab, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is the limitation note about delta=1, which does not clarify selection criteria relative to navigate_to or switch_tab.

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