browser_go_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens when there is no forward history) or how sessionId affects the operation. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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?

At five words in a single sentence, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core action without redundancy.

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 the one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but omits important context such as default session behavior, failure modes, and whether the sessionId is required. An agent would need to infer these details, making the description incomplete for a robust understanding.

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 already documents the only parameter sessionId with a description ('Browser session ID'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it earns the baseline 3 as the schema carries the burden.

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 'Navigate forward in browser history' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from its sibling browser_go_back by direction. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's function.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like browser_navigate or browser_go_back. It relies entirely on the tool name for differentiation, offering no context or exclusions.

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