back

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires an active session, what UI element it targets, or if it has side effects (e.g., state changes, destructive actions). The minimal description leaves significant ambiguity.

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 extremely short (three words), which avoids verbosity but also omits critical context. It is front-loaded but under-specified, making it insufficient for an 18-parameter tool. Conciseness is not achieved at the expense of clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (18 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's role in navigation, how parameters affect behavior, or what the result looks like. The high schema coverage partially compensates, but behavioral context is missing.

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 94%, so the input schema already documents most parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 'Navigate back.' indicates a basic verb+resource structure, but it lacks specificity about what 'back' means in context (e.g., previous page, previous screen, or undo). It distinguishes from siblings like 'close' and 'home' only by name, not by explicit scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'close', 'scroll', or 'swipe'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusions.

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