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, and it is very thin. It does not state that this performs a single-step browser back, whether it waits for navigation to complete, what happens if there is no history, or whether any page state is returned.

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 short sentence with no filler. It is immediately readable and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool this is nearly sufficient, but it lacks important behavioral context: whether it mimics the browser back button exactly, what it returns, and how it differs from back_and_snapshot. Because there is no output schema or annotation support, the description should have added a bit more detail.

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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully documents the empty parameter set.

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 clearly states the action: 'Navigate back in history,' which distinguishes it from go_forward. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other navigation-related siblings like navigate or back_and_snapshot, and it leaves 'history' somewhat vague.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want to return to a previous page in the browser session history. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives like go_forward, navigate, or back_and_snapshot.

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