go_back

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the intended action, but does not mention behavior when no history exists, whether frames are involved, or what happens to the current page state. This is acceptable for a simple tool, but still minimal.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly states the action and the resource it operates on, which is the appropriate level of detail for a tool with no arguments.

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-argument browser navigation action, the description is essentially complete: it tells the agent what happens and the tool's scope. A small caveat about empty history or frame context would add robustness, but the core call is fully specified.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to add. The empty schema plus the clear description fully covers the invocation contract.

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 and resource: 'Go back one page in browser history.' This clearly communicates the action and distinguishes it from siblings like go_forward, navigate, and get_current_url, even without needing their schemas.

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 description implies when the tool should be used: to move one step backward in the browser history. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from navigate or go_forward, so some routing guidance 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.