go_back

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses multi-agent scoping, the TAB_NOT_OWNED rejection, tab cap behavior, tab_id auto-resolution, and the change_report return format including truncation behavior and fallback to read_page.

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 long but front-loaded and organized: purpose, return, when-to-use, related tools, multi-agent behavior, and the change_report contract. Every section adds information the agent needs, especially since no output schema exists to explain the return value.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides the missing operational context: routing guidance, multi-agent constraints, error behavior, and return shape. An agent can call this tool correctly and interpret its outcome without needing additional documentation.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates tab_id ownership guidance that is also present in the schema and adds no material meaning beyond it, 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 verb and resource: 'Navigate back one page in browser history.' It explicitly distinguishes this from go_forward and navigate, so an agent can select it without opening schemas. It does not mention the sibling 'back', but the core purpose and primary sibling separation are 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'to return to the previous page after following a link or navigating away.' It also names alternatives and their purposes: go_forward undoes a go_back, and navigate goes to a specific URL instead. This is actionable routing guidance.

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