browser_go_forward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but does not cover edge cases such as what happens if there is no forward history (e.g., does nothing or errors), nor does it mention any side effects. For a zero-parameter tool, this is minimally sufficient but lacks depth.

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 succinct sentence of 8 words, front-loading the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and no unnecessary information is present.

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 (no parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately conveys the core function. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that the operation requires a browser context and that nothing happens if there is no forward history. Still, it is largely sufficient.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter detail. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Go forward to the next page in browser history.' It uses a specific verb ('go forward') and resource ('browser history'), and the distinction from the sibling tool 'browser_go_back' is evident from the name and description.

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 use when wanting to navigate forward, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browser_go_back' or conditions when it should not be used (e.g., when no forward history exists).

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