forward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden, yet it discloses nothing: no mention of what happens when there is no forward history, whether the call fails or is a no-op, whether it waits for page load, or whether it changes active tab state. Two words provide zero behavioral context for a state-changing navigation action.

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?

It is technically terse, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The two-word fragment is front-loaded in the sense that there is nothing else to follow, yet it fails to earn even that space by conveying actionable information.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), which lowers the bar, but for a navigation action with no annotations the description should still say what state change occurs and what the response looks like. It provides none of that, leaving the agent to guess behavior.

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 single optional 'tab' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with 'tab id, defaults to current', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

"History forward." essentially restates the tool name 'forward' with the noun 'history' attached; it never states that this navigates the browser's forward history or what page state results. Sibling tools like 'back' and 'reload' make browser navigation plausible, but the description itself barely adds specificity beyond the identifier.

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 whatsoever on when to use this versus 'back', 'navigate', 'reload', or 'switch_tab'. The agent must infer that this is the inverse of 'back' and that it should be used only when forward history exists.

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