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 disclosure burden. It usefully states that a snapshot is returned, but says nothing about behavior at the start of history (no-op vs. error), whether it waits for the page to load, or how it interacts with 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, explaining return values is not required, and the description adequately covers the core action. However, for a navigation-mutating browser tool with no annotations, it should at minimum address the include_snapshot parameter and edge-case behavior when no history exists.

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% for the single parameter include_snapshot (default true), and the description does not mention it at all – it asserts a snapshot is always returned, leaving unclear what include_snapshot=false yields. The description therefore does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Go back one page in the tab's history') and notes the return ('resulting snapshot'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of naming the sibling alternative (go_forward) or contrasting with navigate, but the back/forward distinction is self-evident.

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 only implied by the verb 'go back' – there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over navigate (go to a URL), go_forward, or snapshot (read the page without navigating). An agent can infer the context but is given no exclusions or prerequisites.

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