go_back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuine value by disclosing outcome uncertainty and the null http_status/content_type semantics when the page is restored from cache, but it says nothing about what 'confirm' triggers, how 'wait_until' affects behavior, or any permission/side-effect profile.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the text is short overall. The middle clause about 'where back leads' is slightly discursive but does carry real informational content, so it mostly 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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is somewhat redundant, and the tool's complexity is low. Still, with zero annotations and three fully undocumented parameters, the definition leaves real gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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% across three parameters (reason, confirm, wait_until), and the description never mentions any of them. The only semantic detail given (http_status/content_type nulls) concerns return values, not inputs, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 ('Go back') and resource scope ('one entry in history'), which cleanly distinguishes it from navigate, reload_page, and open_browser. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the history semantics and the note that the destination is unknown until it happens, which tells the agent to expect an unverified landing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. navigate vs reload_page), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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