tor_forward

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

The description provides no behavioral traits beyond the simple action. It doesn't mention side effects (e.g., page state changes), error conditions (e.g., no forward history), or interactions with the session. Annotations do not add context, so the description carries the burden and fails to disclose any non-obvious 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 short sentence that perfectly conveys the action without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no 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?

Given the tool's extreme simplicity (no params, a single action) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it could be improved by mentioning edge cases like the behavior when no forward history exists, which would make it more complete.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 resource (page). It distinguishes from sibling 'tor_back' by implying the opposite direction, though it doesn't explicitly mention 'browser history' to remove ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and action: use when you need to move forward in the browsing history. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like tor_navigate or tor_back, nor any mention of preconditions (e.g., having a forward history).

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