browser_forward

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the navigation waits for page load, what happens if there is no forward history, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns.

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 a single short sentence and is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no wasted words, though it is so terse that it lacks any supporting structure.

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 browser navigation tool with an undocumented optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, side effects, or error conditions, leaving important gaps for an agent.

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 has one optional parameter, tab_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention tab_id at all, so an agent receives no guidance on what the parameter does or when to supply it.

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 browser action with a clear verb and resource: go forward in history. It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling browser_back tool or any other navigation tools, so it falls 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus browser_back or other navigation tools. The intended use is implied by the action itself, but no explicit context or prerequisites are provided.

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