go_forward

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and leaves key behaviors unstated: what happens when there is no forward history (no-op versus error), whether it waits for the page to load, and whether it works in the currently focused tab only. It restates the action but not its side effects or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, the amount, and the target are all in the first few words, and nothing is repeated.

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, so the description is close to sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema the definition should still mention the no-forward-history outcome and whether navigation is synchronous. As written, an agent can call it but cannot predict what it returns or how it fails.

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 takes zero parameters and the description correctly does not invent any; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The statement that it acts on 'the active tab' does add the one piece of targeting context an agent needs.

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 ('Go forward'), a bounded scope ('one step'), and an explicit context ('the active tab's history'), which separates it from go_back and from navigate. It is clear without naming a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the top score.

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 at all: nothing says when to prefer this over navigate to a known URL, or how it relates to go_back. The only hint is the inherent directionality of 'forward'; an agent must infer the rest.

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