Navigate browser page forward

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

The annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false), not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds that it affects only the specified page and not other sessions, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose details like what happens if there is no forward history, or if any errors are expected. The description does not contradict annotations, but the added value is moderate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose and a key constraint. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with a clear purpose, but it lacks information about error handling (e.g., what happens when there is no forward history) and potential edge cases. The presence of an output schema might clarify return values, but the description does not mention them. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate as it meets basic needs but leaves some gaps.

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?

Since the schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it does not explicitly explain the parameters. However, the parameters are self-explanatory: sessionId and pageId are required to identify the page, and timeoutMs is optional and likely for controlling the wait time. The description's statement about addressing one page implicitly covers the need for sessionId and pageId, and the timeoutMs is optional as per the schema. Overall, the semantics are clear from the context.

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 states the tool navigates forward in browser history, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool browser_back by explicitly mentioning 'forward', and it also notes the operation is scoped to a specific page without affecting other sessions. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling tool browser_navigate for direct URL navigation, which could be considered an alternative.

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 implies that this tool should be used when you need to go forward in history on a specific page, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like browser_back or browser_navigate. It provides some context by mentioning 'explicitly addressed page' but lacks clear guidance on when not to use it or which other tools to consider.

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