Simulates a back button press on a connected Android device to navigate to the previous screen or exit an app. Use this tool when you need to trigger the system back action without requiring any parameters.
Simulates a back button event on the connected Android device. No parameters are required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it 'simulates a back button event' but does not disclose potential effects like navigating to a previous screen, closing the keyboard, exiting an app, or that the behavior may be application-dependent. This is a meaningful gap for an input-injection tool.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the parameter requirement, and every word earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the action, the target device, and confirms no parameters. A little more context about typical side effects would improve completeness, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema already shows no properties. The description adds explicit confirmation that no parameters are required, which removes any ambiguity. This adds value beyond the empty schema, so a 4 is 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 ('Simulates') and a clear resource ('a back button event on the connected Android device'). It is distinguishable from siblings like input_home and input_tap because it specifically targets the back button. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with input_keyevent, which could also send a back keycode.
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 about when to use this tool over alternatives such as input_keyevent or other input simulation tools. The description only states what it does and that it requires no parameters, leaving an agent to infer when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.