go_back

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

The annotations provide the necessary safety profile (non-destructive). The description itself is just a functional statement of intent. It provides minimal unique behavioral context beyond what is implied by the action 'go_back'.

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 definition is extremely concise and front-loaded, providing the essential action ('Navigate back') and the scope ('in history') in a single sentence with zero wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter browser action tool, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks detail on whether this action is limited to one step back or traverses the entire history stack, which could be relevant in a complex agent workflow.

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?

Since the tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to compensate for the lack of schema detail. The brief sentence is functionally sufficient for a parameter-less tool.

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 uses a specific action and resource ('Navigate back in history'), making the purpose clear. It is slightly less specific than a 5 because it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like 'reload' or 'navigate' based purely on the text.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. Since 'navigate' and 'reload' are siblings, the AI agent might not know if this is for simple history traversal or if it should use the broader 'navigate' function.

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