MCP Accessibility Scanner

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying 'to the next page', clarifying it's about browser navigation history. It doesn't contradict annotations, and adds meaningful context beyond what annotations alone provide about the specific navigation behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately clarifies the target ('to the next page'). Every word earns its place in this minimal yet complete description.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema) and comprehensive annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could slightly improve by mentioning constraints (e.g., only works if forward history exists) or the expected outcome, but for a basic navigation tool with good annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and appropriately doesn't mention any. It earns a baseline 4 since no parameters exist to document, and the description correctly focuses on the action rather than non-existent inputs.

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 specific action (go forward) and resource (next page). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'browser_navigate_back' by specifying the forward direction, and from 'browser_navigate' by focusing on navigation within browser history rather than to a new URL.

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 context (navigating forward in browser history), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'browser_navigate_back' or 'browser_navigate'. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions (e.g., only works if there's forward history available).

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