browser_go_forward

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose what happens when there is no forward history (e.g., error, no-op), whether it waits for page load, or other behavioral traits. This leaves the agent potentially unaware of edge cases.

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 concise sentence that fully expresses the tool's purpose. No filler words or redundant information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete for a basic navigation action. However, it would be more complete if it mentioned behavior when no forward history exists, but this is a minor gap for such a simple operation.

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 the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description does not need to explain parameters. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and there is no additional requirement for the description to compensate.

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 'Go forward to the next page' clearly states the action (go forward) and the target (next page in browser history). It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_go_back and browser_navigate by specifying a distinct navigation direction.

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 usage is implied by the name and description: it moves forward in browsing history. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., must have gone back first) or when not to use it.

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