go_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The minimal text 'Go forward in history' does not disclose what happens when there is no forward history, whether the action is non-destructive, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a transparent specification.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, conveying the essential information without 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain the output or handle edge cases (e.g., no forward history). For a simple navigation tool, this may be sufficient, but it lacks completeness in covering potential states.

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, so the schema coverage is 100% trivially. While the description does not add parameter-level detail (none needed), it clarifies the tool's action beyond the schema. For zero-parameter tools, the baseline is 4, and the description meets this standard.

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 in history' clearly states the verb 'go forward' and the resource 'history'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'go_back' (back in history) and 'reload' (refresh current page), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 in browser navigation history, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'go_back' or 'reload'. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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