browser_forward

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers little: it does not say what happens when there is no forward history (a common failure mode), that it mutates the active page state, or that it waits before returning. The only behavioral hint is the undocumented wait_seconds default.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding and the key action stated first. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough to leave the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the description leaves the two undocumented parameters, the failure case (no forward history), and the wait behavior unaddressed. For a state-mutating navigation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, this is under-specified.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither session_id nor wait_seconds is mentioned, and the meaningful wait-after-navigation behavior implied by wait_seconds (default 1.2s) is left entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Navigate one step forward in browser history' — which clearly separates it from browser_navigate and browser_reload by name alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the obvious sibling browser_back, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating in the text.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative (browser_back) or of the condition that makes forward navigation possible (having previously gone back). The agent must infer all of this from the tool name.

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