forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the action and does not disclose behavior such as whether it fails silently if no forward history exists, or whether it relies on browser session state. This is minimal disclosure for a simple 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 of five characters. It is maximally concise and conveys the essential information with no wasted words.

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 one-action tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more informative given the sibling context (e.g., mentioning it uses browser history navigation as opposed to 'navigate'). It provides minimal context beyond the action itself.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage is 100% trivially). Since no parameters exist, the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline score of 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 '浏览器前进一页' clearly states the action (forward) and the resource (browser page). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling 'back' tool, which performs the reverse action.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'navigate' or 'back', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., must have forward history).

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