go_back

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: when 'tab' is specified, it operates via CDP without changing focus. This is useful context beyond just 'go back'. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors such as history limits, what happens when no tab is specified, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 only 24 words in two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place—there is no redundancy or verbosity.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description effectively conveys the core functionality and the key tab-specific nuance. It could explicitly state that without 'tab' it operates on the current focused tab, but this is reasonably implied. Given the low complexity, it is largely 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of semantic value by explaining the tab parameter's CDP/no-focus behavior at the tool level, but it mostly repeats the schema description. The 'count' parameter gains no additional meaning from the description.

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 browser history') with a specific verb and resource, and additionally distinguishes itself from the sibling go_forward by explicitly mentioning the back direction. It also adds the tab-specific behavior, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when navigating back in browser history) and provides a conditional usage note for the 'tab' parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with go_forward or navigate, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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