Go Forward

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

The description adds a meaningful behavior beyond annotations: 'confirms the tab really moved before reporting success.' This tells the agent the tool verifies navigation rather than blindly returning, which is useful and not redundant with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place: the first states the primary action and the second adds the verification behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 operation, the description is sufficient: it identifies the action, confirms a verification step, and openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false provide safety context. With no output schema, it would have been stronger to mention the return value, but the success-reporting hint partially covers this.

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 every parameter's meaning is already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which makes the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Navigate a tab forward in history.' The word 'forward' clearly separates this tool from the sibling go_back, and the confirmation behavior further clarifies its identity. An agent can distinguish this tool without opening the schema.

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 makes the intended use clear by saying 'forward in history,' but it does not explicitly mention go_back or state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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