safari_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Go back in browser history' and does not explain side effects such as whether it mutates the active tab, whether navigation waits for page load, or what happens if history is empty. This is a significant transparency gap for a state-changing navigation tool.

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 compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It delivers the essential purpose immediately and every word 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?

The tool is simple with only one optional parameter, and the schema covers that parameter well. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around tab targeting behavior, expected side effects, and edge-case behavior like navigating back from the first page, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, with the schema fully documenting the optional 'receipt' parameter as a tab identifier that survives reconnects and subagents. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already handles that responsibility, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Go back') and a resource ('browser history'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like safari_go_forward or safari_navigate, but the directionality of 'back' is enough to distinguish it from forward navigation.

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 implies this tool should be used when an agent needs to move to the previous page in browser history, which offers some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over safari_navigate or safari_go_forward, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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