go_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions that a snapshot is returned, but says nothing about what happens when there is no forward history (error vs. no-op), whether this requires an active page context, or that it mutates 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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the primary action front-loaded and the return behavior appended in the right order.

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 needn't be explained, and the tool is conceptually simple. However, with no annotations and an undocumented include_snapshot parameter, the definition leaves gaps an agent would need to guess around.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter include_snapshot has no title-level explanation of its effect. The description's 'Returns the resulting snapshot' arguably implies snapshot content but does not clarify that include_snapshot can suppress it, so the schema gap is not compensated.

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 states a specific verb ('Go forward') and resource ('the tab's history'), which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name the counterpart go_back sibling, but the directionality is clear enough that an agent can distinguish them.

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 'in the tab's history' – this is a browser navigation-history operation. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over go_back, navigate, or browser_tabs, nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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