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, and it discloses nothing: no mention of history semantics, what happens at the start of history, whether it waits for navigation to settle, or what state it leaves the page in.

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?

One word is technically short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose or any structure for an agent to latch onto.

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 trivial history-navigation tool the bar is low, but with no annotations, no output schema, and a one-word description, an agent has no confirmation of scope, side effects, or expected post-condition. Only the tool name carries any meaning.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for zero-param tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description adds nothing but nothing is required.

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 entire description is the single word "Back", which essentially restates the tool name go_back. It never identifies the resource or domain (browser navigation history) or distinguishes itself from siblings like go_forward or reload beyond the loose implication of the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. The closest thing to guidance is the implicit pairing with go_forward in the sibling list, which the description itself does nothing to establish.

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