appium.go_back

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose safety-relevant traits via '[approval required][device mutation][risk:dangerous]', which is valuable, but it doesn't explain what state changes occur (e.g., whether it can exit the app, lose unsaved work, or fail without a back stack). Partial disclosure.

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 risk tags front-loaded. There is no fluff, and the essential warning is prominent. It could include more context, but for what it says, it is efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: no return value, no failure modes, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when navigation is appropriate. It is a minimal statement of action and risk, insufficient for confident autonomous invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions neither serverUrl nor sessionId, leaving their purposes undocumented. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action (send back navigation) on a specific resource (Android/iOS Appium session), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like appium.tap_by_text or appium.swipe. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other navigation or verification tools, no mention of prerequisites like having an active session, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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