browser_go_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavior. It says only 'go to next page' and does not disclose what happens when there is no forward history, whether navigation is synchronous, how it interacts with browser back/forward stack, or any potential side effects. This is minimal even for a simple navigation action.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase adds no value beyond the tool name and leaves out critical operational context. A concise description should be informative, not just a translation.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description still needs to convey the operation's meaning and nuances. It fails to mention history-based navigation, limitations, or related tools. The description is essentially a label and not a complete explanation of the tool's context.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There is nothing to explain about parameters; the description's lack of parameter information is not a deficiency because no parameters exist.

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 '前进到下一页' is a direct translation of the tool name 'browser_go_forward' (go to next page). It restates the name in another language without adding any clarifying detail, making it essentially a tautology. It does distinguish from go_back by implying forward navigation, but that inference comes entirely from the name, not from the description itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_go_back, browser_goto, or browser_reload. No context, prerequisites, or example scenarios are provided. The description consists only of a phrase and gives no usage direction.

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