browser_navigate_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 reveals nothing about behavior: it does not mention that it moves forward in browser history, what happens when there is no forward history, or any side effects. The description is practically empty.

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 extremely short—just one word—which may seem concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It fails to convey any useful meaning beyond the tool name.

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?

Despite the simple tool and one well-documented parameter, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot reliably determine that this tool navigates forward in history, what prerequisites exist, or how it behaves when no forward entry is available.

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 description adds no parameter information, but the input schema fully covers the only parameter (_agent_id) with a clear explanation. According to rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description does not detract.

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 "前进" simply means "forward" and is essentially a translation of the tool name. It does not state the verb/resource (e.g., navigate browser history forward) nor does it distinguish from siblings like browser_navigate_back or 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_navigate_back or browser_navigate. No context or exclusions are provided.

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