Get Playwright fix workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses what the tool returns (the two-step workflow) and implies no side effects or additional behavior. There are no hidden mutations, auth requirements, or rate limits to disclose, making it adequately transparent.

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 sentence with a numbered list of two steps. It is front-loaded with the purpose and does not waste words. Every element earns its place, 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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what the tool returns and the context in which it applies. The information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without any ambiguity.

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. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 verb 'Return' and the specific resource: 'the recommended workflow when fixing Playwright tests'. It provides the actual workflow steps, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like 'analyze_and_fix_selector' or 'get_failure_artifacts'.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when fixing Playwright tests to obtain the recommended workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a zero-parameter informational tool. The workflow steps imply it should be consulted before applying fixes.

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