前进

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that it '触发浏览器历史导航，可能重新加载页面' (triggers browser history navigation, may reload the page), which is useful side-effect information. However, it omits other relevant behaviors like what happens when there is no forward history, or whether the tool waits for navigation completion. Some transparency is provided but not comprehensive.

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 succinctly written in two sentences, front-loading the core purpose immediately. The permission note is on a separate line for clarity. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool, the description covers the main action and a key side-effect. However, with no output schema, it does not specify what the tool returns or how failures (e.g., no forward history) are handled. The absence of this information leaves moderate gaps for an agent attempting to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both timeout and wait_until, including explanations of each enum value. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action: '在活动标签页中前进到下一页历史记录' (go forward to the next page history in the active tab). It uses a specific verb and resource, and naturally distinguishes from siblings like web_back (which goes backward). The title '前进' (forward) reinforces this but the description is explicit.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_back or web_refresh. It simply describes what the tool does without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. No 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' is present.

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