browser_go_back

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one real behavioral trait: calling it when history is exhausted will fail, plus the precheck route. It says nothing about whether navigation waits for the page to load, whether the page's DOM is ready afterward, or whether state is preserved — meaningful gaps for a navigation tool.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the operational caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), so the description is close to adequate. But with no output schema, an agent is left guessing what a successful call yields or whether it blocks until the new page loads — the one remaining thing worth stating.

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 tabId and windowId are already explained with their defaults. The description's phrase 'this tab's history' loosely reinforces the tabId target but adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is the correct ceiling here.

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 and resource: 'Go back one step in this tab's history.' The scope ('one step', 'this tab') is precise and clearly distinguishes it from navigation tools like browser_navigate or browser_reload. It never names browser_go_forward as the counterpart, so sibling differentiation is implied by the word 'back' rather than explicit.

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?

Gives an actionable precondition and names the tool that answers it: 'browser_get_window_info reports whether a tab can go back.' That effectively tells the agent when to use versus when to skip. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use framing or naming browser_go_forward as the alternative direction tool.

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