Playwright MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation with potential side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as 'Go forward' implies navigation but doesn't detail effects like page loading or history changes. It doesn't contradict annotations, so it earns a baseline score for adding some value.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context or expected outcomes, which could be helpful for an agent. It meets minimum viability without being comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. It earns a high score because it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps, and the lack of parameter discussion is efficient.

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 action ('Go forward') and target ('to the next page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'browser_navigate_back' or 'browser_navigate', though the action is inherently different. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'browser_navigate_back' or 'browser_navigate'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a browser session or forward history), exclusions, or contextual cues. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.

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