navigation_forward

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the profile-scoping rule and the ID-locality constraint, but never says what happens when there is no forward history (no-op vs error) or what the response contains. Meaningful but incomplete for an unannotated mutation of navigation 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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following two sentences are short, non-redundant prerequisites. Only the profile-locality warning is generic enough to border on boilerplate, but it still earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the required-parameter prerequisites are covered. The remaining gap is the no-forward-history edge case, which matters because an agent looping on this call has no way to know it should stop.

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 coverage is only 50%: tab_id is documented in the schema but profile_id has no description. The description compensates by naming profile_id as required, telling the agent to obtain it from profiles_list, and warning that IDs are profile-local. That is real added meaning above the schema, short of a full enumeration of parameter behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Navigate forward in browser history') plus the scope ('for a tab'), which cleanly separates it from navigation_back, navigation_reload, and navigation_go_to_url. An agent can select this without opening any schema.

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 word 'forward' implies the when-to-use case against navigation_back, and the profiles_list prerequisite is spelled out. However, there is no explicit guidance on when this fails or when to prefer navigation_go_to_url, so the routing signal is only implied.

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