safari_go_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not explain what happens when there is no forward history, whether it affects the current tab or the one specified by the receipt, or any failure behavior. The parameter is only described in the schema, not the tool description.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately concise for a simple command, though it borders on being too terse given the lack of supplementary context.

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 large sibling set and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use forward versus back or navigate, does not mention tab targeting (though the schema does), and does not address edge cases like empty history. For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, more context is expected.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'receipt' parameter fully documented in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-related information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 browser history' states a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like safari_go_back and safari_navigate. It is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as safari_go_back or safari_navigate. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a forward history entry) or context like after navigating back. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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