browser_go_forward

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, with no mention of side effects, what happens if there is no forward history, or how tabId routing works. The behavior is underexplained for a navigation-triggering tool.

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 seven-word sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for the simple action it describes, though it could have added more value without becoming verbose.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is minimal, but it lacks essential context such as when forward navigation is applicable, behavior at the end of history, and differentiation from sibling tools. The schema covers the parameter but not the operational context, making the description incomplete.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage for the sole tabId parameter, including guidance to use browser_list_tabs. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Go forward to the next page' clearly states the action (go forward) and the resource (next page). It is not a tautology and inherently distinguishes from the sibling tool browser_go_back by direction, though it does not explicitly refer to browsing history or name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_navigate or browser_go_back. There is no mention of prerequisites, when forward navigation is applicable, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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