browser_go_forward

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and drops it. It never says what happens when there is no forward history (error vs no-op), whether it blocks until the page loads, or whether it interacts with human-control state given sibling tools like browser_start_human_control.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail rather than being a model of tight completeness.

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 history-navigation tool with no output schema and fully documented optional params, the core intent is covered. Edge-case behavior (no forward entry, load waiting, failure modes) is absent, which matters for an automation agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with two optional, well-described params (tabId, windowId defaults). The description adds nothing beyond the schema — it does not explain default resolution or ordering between tabId and windowId.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Go forward one step in this tab's history.' Unambiguous about what it does. No sibling differentiation is offered, but the pairing with browser_go_back makes the intent self-evident from name and description alone.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'forward' and the history framing. It never says when to prefer this over browser_navigate, browser_reload, or browser_go_back, nor does it state any precondition (e.g., that forward history must exist).

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