playwright_cli_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Report local Playwright CLI availability' is minimal and vague; it does not explain what 'availability' means (e.g., whether it checks PATH, version, or connectivity), nor does it state whether the tool has side effects or how it reports results. The agent is left guessing about the tool's exact behavior.

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, clear sentence: 'Report local Playwright CLI availability.' It is concise and front-loaded, with every word contributing to the meaning. There is no redundant information 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 health-check tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It tells what the tool does at a high level, and the output schema likely covers return structure. However, the description lacks semantic depth about what 'availability' entails and how it differs from other health checks, leaving room for ambiguity. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a borderline acceptable but not rich context.

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 coverage is 100%. With no parameters to describe, the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description's lack of parameter details is not a gap because there are no parameters to document.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Report local Playwright CLI availability.' This clearly indicates the tool checks whether the Playwright CLI is available. It is distinct from sibling tools like connector_health, which checks connector health, and playwright_cli_open/goto, which perform actions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from connector_health or explain the exact scope beyond availability.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before Playwright automation tasks, nor does it compare with connector_health. There is no context about prerequisites or typical call scenarios, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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