wavexis_forward

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, matching the non-destructive mutation of navigating forward. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as error handling if no forward history exists. With no contradictions, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for purpose and one line each for Args and Returns. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (navigate forward) and the description covers its function and return type. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed. A score of 4 reflects that it is complete for this low-complexity tool, but could optionally mention behavior when history is empty.

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 0% for the direct parameter 'input', which is only vaguely described as 'Session reference parameters'. The schema itself provides detail for session_id, but the description adds no meaningful guidance beyond that. A score of 2 reflects inadequate compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Navigate forward in browser history', which clearly identifies the verb (navigate), the resource (browser history), and the direction (forward). This distinguishes it well from siblings like wavexis_back.

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 for moving forward in history but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given many navigation tools (back, navigate, reload), explicit alternatives or prerequisites would help, but the basic purpose is clear.

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