Playwright MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (gets a snapshot with annotations) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as performance characteristics, error handling, or whether it requires specific browser states. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and context without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with key information ('Get a snapshot focused on interactive elements') and appropriately sized for its complexity.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and its intended use ('for UI automation'), but it lacks details on output format, behavioral constraints, or how it differs from siblings. This leaves gaps in understanding for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline score of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.

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's purpose: 'Get a snapshot focused on interactive elements (buttons, links, inputs) with annotated screenshot for UI automation.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('snapshot'), and scope ('interactive elements'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-full-snapshot' or 'get-screenshot' beyond mentioning 'focused on interactive elements.'

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 usage context ('for UI automation') and suggests when to use it (when needing interactive elements), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get-full-snapshot' or 'get-screenshot.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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