Playwright MCP Server

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 states the tool 'gets all text content' but does not specify behavioral traits such as performance characteristics (e.g., speed, pagination), error handling, or whether it requires specific page states (e.g., loaded page). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all text content') and specifies the scope ('from the page') and use cases ('for reading and content extraction'). Every word contributes to understanding without waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (simple text extraction with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format (e.g., structured text, raw string) or behavioral context, which could be important for an agent to use it effectively in varied 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details and adds value by clarifying the tool's intent.

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 with specific verbs ('get all text content') and resources ('from the page'), specifying content types like headings, paragraphs, and lists. It distinguishes the tool by focusing on text extraction for reading, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get-full-dom or get-full-snapshot, which might also retrieve text content.

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 for 'reading and content extraction,' suggesting when to use this tool (e.g., for text analysis). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., vs. get-full-dom for full DOM or get-screenshot for visual capture), leaving usage context partially inferred.

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