go_back

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only specifies the platform. It does not disclose effects on navigation state, failure conditions such as no previous screen, or whether an active session is required.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the platform qualifier is parenthetical. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 action with an output schema, the description is minimally viable, but it omits practical context such as when to invoke it or how it interacts with the current session. The gaps in usage and behavioral context prevent it from being fully complete.

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 no parameters, so the schema already covers the parameter surface completely. The description has no parameter details to add, making the zero-parameter baseline appropriate.

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 ('Appuie') and resource ('le bouton retour') and scopes the action to Android/Windows. This clearly distinguishes go_back from siblings like tap_element or screenshot, even without schema inspection.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The name and imperative phrasing imply a back-navigation action, but the agent is not explicitly told when this is the right choice among the sibling tools.

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