go_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting critical details such as what happens if there is no forward history (e.g., silent failure, error, or no-op), whether the page reloads, or any side effects. This lack of transparency could mislead an agent into unexpected behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word ('Navigate', 'forward', 'in browser history') is essential and precise. It is optimally concise for a simple tool, earning the highest score.

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 with no parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits important contextual details like preconditions (must have forward history), error handling, and potential influence on the browser state. While adequate for basic understanding, it misses completeness for a fully robust tool definition.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Following the guideline '0 params = baseline 4', the description adds meaning by specifying the action, even though no parameter details are needed. The description is sufficient for parameter semantics since there are no parameters to document.

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 'Navigate forward in browser history.' clearly states the action (verb 'navigate') and the resource ('browser history') with direction ('forward'). It distinguishes from sibling tools such as 'go_back' (opposite direction), 'navigate' (to a specific URL), and 'reload_page' (refresh), making the tool's unique purpose immediately apparent.

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 like 'go_back' or 'navigate'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a forward history entry) or scenarios where this tool might be inappropriate. The description lacks any contextual usage advice, leaving the agent to infer 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.