go_forward

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the CDP behavior and the 'without changing focus' trait, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention edge cases like running out of forward history, potential errors, or return values, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple navigation tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the notable tab behavior. It omits edge cases but remains sufficiently complete for typical use. The lack of guidance about when to use it relative to siblings slightly reduces completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description avoids repeating parameter details; its only parameter-related clause ('If tab is specified, operates on that tab via CDP without changing focus') mirrors what the schema already says. No additional semantic value is added beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Navigate forward in browser history.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like go_back and navigate. The additional detail about tab targeting further clarifies its scope.

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 for moving forward in history but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as go_back or navigate. It provides context for the optional tab parameter (CDP, no focus change) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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