browser_go_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the operation but does not disclose what happens when there is no forward history (e.g., no-op, error), whether the browser state changes, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a navigation 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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, and every word earns its place. This is ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no required inputs), the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and an output schema present, it may be incomplete regarding return values or error behavior, which an agent might need for robust handling. Still, for a simple action, this is minimally adequate.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed, as it specifies the operation is on the active tab. No further parameter clarification is required, so a baseline 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 'Navigate the active tab forward in history' clearly states the action (navigate) and the target (active tab, forward in history), distinguishing it from browser_go_back which moves backward. While it doesn't explicitly mention the browser context, the verb and resource are specific enough for basic understanding.

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 usage (when you want to go forward in navigation history), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus browser_go_back or when it is inappropriate (e.g., no forward history). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it meets the minimum viable threshold but lacks explicit routing to siblings.

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