browser_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 only states the action but does not mention potential outcomes, such as what happens if there is no forward history, whether it affects the current tab, or any prerequisites. This is insufficient for a navigation tool in a context with many siblings.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient and free of extraneous words. While it is minimal, it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could benefit from a brief mention of edge cases.

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 simple navigation tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks context about what happens when there is no forward history, whether it operates on the current tab or the whole browser, and how it relates to browser_back. Given the large set of sibling tools and the absence of annotations or output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly in all scenarios.

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 the baseline score is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and the empty schema already covers everything. No additional parameter information is required.

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 states the action clearly: 'browser forward to next page' in Chinese. It identifies the resource (browser) and the specific operation (forward navigation), distinguishing it from the sibling browser_back. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'next page' means (e.g., history forward) or provide any additional context that would help differentiate it from other navigation tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use forward vs. back, or when it's appropriate to use this over browser_reload or other navigation tools. The description leaves all usage decisions to the agent's inference.

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