browser_go_forward

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the action and generic return type. It does not disclose side effects on browser state, prerequisites such as an active browser session, or behavior when there is no forward history entry.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and has clear Args/Returns sections. The generic 'JSON response from the API' line is somewhat redundant given the existing output schema, but it does not bloat the description.

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 one-parameter tool the description covers the action, parameter source, and return. It remains incomplete because it does not mention the forward-history edge case or any browser-session prerequisite, which an agent could need to predict failure.

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 provides only the property name and type with zero description coverage. The description adds meaning by identifying serialno as the browser device serialno and pointing to list_devices as its source.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Navigate forward in the browser history.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling browser_go_back and the naively similar browser_navigate.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The intended context (after going backwards, when forward history exists) is only implied by the word 'forward' and the existence of browser_go_back.

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