browser_go_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It completely fails to explain the tool's behavior: it doesn't state that it moves forward in history, what happens if there is no forward history, whether it changes the current page, or how it affects the session. 'Navigated forward' is a vague assertion that reveals nothing about side effects or requirements.

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?

While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides no actionable information or structure. A concise description would say 'Navigate forward one step in the browser history for the specified page.' This is more like a truncated log message, which does not earn credit for conciseness.

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 nature (a browser history navigation) and the existence of sibling tools like browser_go_back, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the forward navigation context, the relationship to back navigation, what happens when history is exhausted, or any return value. Even with good schema coverage, the description's one-line statement leaves the core functionality unexplained.

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 fully documents both parameters (pageId and sessionId) with clear descriptions and a 100% coverage rate. Therefore, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient, so the description doesn't harm parameters understanding.

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 'Navigated forward' is a past-tense statement that merely restates the tool name. It does not explain what the tool does, such as 'Navigate forward in the browser's session history for the specified page.' It is essentially a status message, not an imperative instruction, and is misleading because it sounds like a confirmation of an action rather than an action to be performed.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool (e.g., when the user wants to move forward in browser history after going back) or distinguish it from siblings like browser_go_back or browser_navigate. There's no information about prerequisites, such as requiring a prior back navigation.

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