even-better-playwright-mcp

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 effectively describes key traits: the tool automatically initiates capture on first call, returns recent requests with status/timing/response previews, and includes a parameter (clear) that affects state by optionally clearing captured data. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details and parameter usage, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence adds essential information, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, automatic behavior, key parameter usage, and return content. However, it lacks details on output format specifics (e.g., structure of 'response previews') and potential side effects beyond clearing, which could be beneficial for full contextual understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (includeStatic, limit, clear) with their types and defaults. The description adds minimal value by mentioning includeStatic's effect ('to include images/CSS/fonts') but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 captured network requests from the browser') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_execute or screenshot by focusing on network monitoring rather than execution or visual capture. It specifies the resource (network requests) and the action (retrieval with automatic capture initiation).

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 for when to use the tool (e.g., 'Automatically starts capturing when first called' and 'Use includeStatic:true to include images/CSS/fonts'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. This gives practical guidance without full exclusion criteria.

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