go_back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the behavioral action (popping the route) and the analogy to a back button gives a sense of reversibility. However, it doesn't disclose edge cases like what happens when the stack has only one route, deep-linking implications, or whether the app's unsaved state is preserved.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Perfectly succinct for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is appropriately complete. The back-button analogy helps an agent understand the semantic effect. It could add edge-case behavior (empty stack) but for such a simple tool this is adequate.

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 has zero parameters, so there's nothing to describe beyond what the schema shows. With 0 params, the baseline is 4 per the rubric, and the description appropriately needs no parameter elaboration.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Pops the current route off the Navigator stack') with a clear analogy to the back button. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling navigate_to or get_current_route tools, which are related navigation operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like navigate_to or simulate_background. The description implies usage via the back-button analogy but there are no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternative tool references.

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