browser_forward

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only restates the basic action without detailing side effects, error conditions (e.g., no forward history), or what happens after navigation. This lack of transparency is a gap for a tool that modifies browser state.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and directly states the purpose, earning every word with no waste.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks additional behavioral context, such as return values, state changes, or failure modes. It does not address what happens when there is no forward history, which could be useful for the agent. Overall, it is sufficient for basic use but not 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?

The tool has zero parameters, making schema coverage 100% vacuously. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add anything about parameters. There is no ambiguity or need for further explanation.

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 'Navigate forward in history' clearly states the tool's action (navigate) and its scope (history), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like browser_back and browser_navigate. It is specific enough to be understood, though slightly terse.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_back or browser_navigate. No context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without guidance on selecting it over other navigation tools.

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