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 simply states the action without explaining what happens if there is no forward history, whether it triggers a page load, or how errors are handled. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a zero-annotation 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, four-word sentence that is perfectly concise. It contains no fluff or redundant information, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits contextual details like prerequisites (e.g., must have navigated back first) and failure behaviors. It is adequate for understanding the basic purpose but incomplete for robust agent decision-making.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no semantic gap for the description to fill. Per the rubric, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline score of 4.

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 clearly specifies the action: navigate forward in history. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'back' (the inverse) and 'navigate' (which typically goes to a specific URL) by indicating direction within the browsing history.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that forward navigation only works after going back, nor does it name or contrast with similar tools. Usage is only implied by the noun 'forward', which is insufficient for an agent deciding between this and other navigation tools.

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