go_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses agent-scoped tab ownership, cross-agent rejection with TAB_NOT_OWNED, the configurable cap default and range, and the mutation-diff change_report behavior including truncation. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then organizes related tools, multi-agent behavior, and return details clearly. It is lengthy for a simple navigation action, but most sentences add actionable context, especially since no output schema exists.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: purpose, alternatives, multi-agent ownership rules, tab_id resolution, and the shape of the returned change_report. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without additional schema explanation.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema, and the description's tab_id note largely overlaps the schema's own guidance. It adds minor context about auto-resolution, but the schema remains the primary source of parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: navigate forward one page in browser history, and returns the new URL. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings go_back and navigate, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('after using go_back, to move forward again') and names alternative tools (go_back, navigate) with their differing purposes. The tab_id guidance also clarifies when to supply that parameter versus relying on auto-resolution.

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