go_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 behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that this action preserves scroll position, in-page state, and POST results, and notes SPA-specific behavior. However, it does not describe failure modes (e.g., going back past available history) or whether the browser must already be open.

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 front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by useful rationale and then an Args section. The phrase 'The honest way out of a wrong turn' is somewhat stylistic, but it efficiently conveys usage context, and the rest is relevant.

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, with two optional parameters and an output schema already present, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, usage, and most parameter semantics, but it omits the set of valid 'wait_until' values, which an agent would need to invoke the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It documents both parameters: 'steps' with a concrete 1–20 range, and 'wait_until' as the readiness signal after the last step with a default of 'settle'. It does not list the allowed values for 'wait_until', which is a meaningful gap.

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: 'Go back in browser history.' It distinguishes the action from simply re-navigating to a URL by explaining what is lost when doing so, making it clear this is a distinct navigation-undo operation rather than a general navigation tool.

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?

It identifies the situation where this tool is appropriate ('a wrong turn') and explicitly contrasts it with the alternative of re-navigating to a remembered URL, explaining why that alternative is inferior on SPAs and when preserving scroll position, in-page state, and POST results matters. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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