Navigate the device browser forward one entry in its session history (history.forward()) — works on BOTH iOS Safari and Android Chrome.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| udid | Yes | Device UDID / serial (iOS or Android) | |
| pageId | No | Target page/tab id — auto-picked when omitted | |
| socket | No | Android only: abstract unix socket name (default: chrome_devtools_remote) | |
| platformVersion | No | Ignored (kept for compatibility) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that it works on both iOS Safari and Android Chrome and mentions the underlying implementation (history.forward()), which adds some transparency. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when there's no forward entry in history (no-op vs. error), any side effects, or whether it requires an active browser session.
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, well-formed sentence that packs the core action, cross-platform scope, and implementation detail without waste. Every element 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 simple navigation action with full schema coverage, the description conveys the core operation adequately. However, it doesn't address edge cases (empty forward history), return behavior, or provide guidance on when to prefer this over alternative navigation tools like device_navigate_url or the session_* family. Given the tool has 4 params and no output schema, slightly more context about expected outcomes would improve completeness.
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%, so all 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema (udid, pageId, socket, platformVersion). The description adds the platform scoping context. At 100% coverage, baseline is 3, and the description provides minimal additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents.
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 clearly states the verb (navigate) and resource (device browser session history) with the specific action (history.forward()). It also adds cross-platform scope (iOS Safari and Android Chrome). While it distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific action, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling webpage_back - though the name is self-explanatory on that front.
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 explains what it does but provides no when-to-use context or exclusions relative to alternative tools like device_navigate_url, ios_navigate_url, or webpage_back. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a session history must exist) or that it only works within a browser context vs. general navigation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set contains near-identical duplicate families: web_* and playwright_* expose ~15 pairs of the same desktop-grid-browser operations (web_get_text/playwright_get_text, web_reload/playwright_reload), and screenshot/log/network/mock capabilities each have 5-8 entry points (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot vs ios_screenshot vs ios_fast_screenshot vs web_screenshot vs webpage_screenshot vs session_screenshot). Many individual descriptions carefully draw boundaries (devtools vs traffic, HID vs session), but an agent cannot reliably distinguish web_* from playwright_*, and ios_screenshot/ios_fast_screenshot/ios_mjpeg_screenshot blur together.
The prefix scheme is broken: Android functionality is split arbitrarily between android_* and device_* (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot), the desktop browser gets two parallel prefixes (web_* and playwright_*), and verbs vary across equivalents (device_navigate_url vs web_navigate vs ios_safari_navigate). session_* uses bare verbs (session_url, session_back), and the same concept gets different names (ios_clipboard_get_hid vs ios_get_pasteboard; device_screen vs ios_orientation).
333 tools is an extreme count by any measure — far beyond the 50+ threshold — and much of the bulk is duplicative (the web_*/playwright_* pairs alone double ~15 slots) or out-of-scope for a device-control server (TestRail, Jira, AzDO, agent memory, secret variables, feedback). Even granting that remote device control + test automation is a broad domain, this surface will devastate agent context budgets and is impossible to navigate coherently.
The core device-control and test-automation domain is remarkably thorough: Android and iOS each have full interaction, app-lifecycle, file, network/proxy, performance, crash, accessibility, recording, and replay coverage, with CRUD lifecycles for flows, suites, app uploads, TestRail cases, and visual-review baselines. Minor gaps exist at the margins — Jira/AzDO lack update/transition/comment operations, and iOS cannot open/close tabs — but the central workflows have no dead ends.
