Get internal locator rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns rules and adds the behavioral detail that the rules prefer getByRole and disallow XPath. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., list, object) or whether any read-only guarantees exist, leaving some ambiguity for a zero-parameter getter.

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, crisp sentence that front-loads the verb 'Return' and packs key details into a parenthetical. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context about the tool's purpose and the nature of the returned rules. It could mention the return structure or that the rules are static, but the tool's simplicity makes this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, so the score reflects that the schema fully covers the parameter aspect.

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 that the tool returns company internal Playwright locator rules, and specifies the content preference (getByRole preferred, no XPath). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle rule evolution, tag rules, or workflow fixes, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 conveys a clear use case: retrieve internal Playwright locator rules. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of 'internal' and the sibling tool names provide enough situational clarity for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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