browser_navigate_back

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already declare. The annotations state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which already signals that the tool may have side effects. The description merely restates the action without elaborating on potential outcomes (e.g., unsaved form data loss, behavior when history is empty, or that it alters the current page state).

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's function. It earns its place with zero waste.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, minimal complexity), the description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the action. Minor missing context could include that it operates on the current tab's history, but that is likely implied in a browser context. Overall, it is complete enough for safe invocation.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters because there are none to explain. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 ('go back') and resource ('previous page in the history'), which unambiguously defines the tool's action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_navigate (which presumably goes to a specific URL) and browser_tabs (which manages tabs). The meaning is instantly clear.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that browser_navigate can be used for direct URL navigation, nor does it specify exclusions such as 'when there is no history' or that it only applies to the current tab. There is no context about when to prefer this over other navigation tools.

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