Playwright MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutable, open-ended, and potentially destructive operation. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but it adds minimal context beyond them—it vaguely implies interaction with dialogs without detailing what 'handle' entails (e.g., accepting/dismissing, providing input). For a tool with annotations covering safety and scope, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details like side effects or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. Every word ('Handle a dialog') directly relates to the tool's function, though it's under-specified. There's no wasted text, making it efficient in structure despite its content gaps.

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 (handling dialogs with potential destruction), lack of output schema, and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'dialog' is in this context, what happens when accepted or dismissed, or the return behavior. The annotations provide safety hints, but the description fails to add necessary context for effective use, leaving significant gaps in 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%, with clear documentation for both parameters: 'accept' (boolean for accepting the dialog) and 'promptText' (string for prompt dialog text). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how these parameters interact or provide examples of usage. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Handle a dialog' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what 'handle' means or what type of dialog is involved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling browser tools like browser_click or browser_press_key, which also handle interactions. The description lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clarifies the action.

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 doesn't mention what triggers a dialog (e.g., alerts, prompts, confirmations) or when other tools like browser_click might be more appropriate. There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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