go_back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the execution environment (real Chrome via OctoLimb extension), which matters for an agent reasoning about side effects. It says nothing about what happens if there is no history to go back to, or whether page state is lost.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the environment caveat precedes the action. Every clause earns its place, though the bracketed preamble is heavier than the one-line action it describes.

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 simple, no-argument, no-output navigation tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essentials — environment and action. Only the history-exhausted/failure behavior and sibling disambiguation are missing.

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% and the single 'intent' parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about what intent should contain for this action.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Go back to the previous page.' It is immediately understandable on its own. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'previous_page' (or 'next_page'), leaving genuine ambiguity about which navigation tool to pick.

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?

The bracketed prefix gives a real constraint — 'use only when the task requires acting on a real website' — which is useful scoping. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus 'previous_page' vs history-independent alternatives, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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