Playwright MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does and its deprecation status. It lacks details on behavioral traits like performance implications, error handling, or output format, though the deprecation warning is useful context.

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?

It is extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and essential: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete for its purpose. It covers what the tool does and key usage guidance, though it could benefit from mentioning output behavior or limitations to be fully comprehensive.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score above 3 for not adding unnecessary information.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('full DOM of the current page'), with explicit differentiation from its sibling 'get-context'. It avoids tautology by not just repeating the tool name.

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?

It explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance by marking the tool as deprecated and naming the alternative 'get-context'. This gives clear direction for selection among tools.

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