Forward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say what happens when there is no forward entry, whether it affects only the current tab, or how it interacts with the 'read' parameter that appends page content after the 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action is the first word. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than deliberately lean given the tool's six parameters.

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 six-parameter navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits failure conditions, tab/slot targeting behavior, and the side effect of the read parameter. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral envelope an agent needs is largely absent.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including tab targeting, the read enum, slot numbering, and multiSlot semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (navigate browser history forward) and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_back by the parenthetical 'after going back'. An agent can identify the action, though the phrasing is terse rather than explicit about scope (per-tab history vs. slot-level).

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?

'after going back' implies the usage context (undoing a back navigation), which is more than nothing, but it gives no explicit when-not guidance, no note that it fails when there is no forward history, and no named alternatives beyond the implied browser_back.

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