Playwright MCP

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false indicate it's a safe, non-destructive operation, and openWorldHint=true suggests it can be used in various contexts. The description adds minimal context beyond this—it doesn't specify if resizing affects page rendering, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it highly efficient. Every part of the sentence ('Resize the browser window') contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 (2 simple parameters) and rich annotations (covering safety and scope), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it doesn't explain what happens after resizing (e.g., success confirmation or error handling). For a browser interaction tool, more context on effects would be helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions for 'width' and 'height'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these parameters are required for resizing. It doesn't explain units (e.g., pixels), valid ranges, or default behaviors, so it relies entirely on the schema.

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 ('Resize') and resource ('the browser window'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like browser_close or browser_take_screenshot by focusing on window dimensions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., browser_snapshot might also involve window manipulation).

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an active browser session), exclusions, or related tools. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of browser_tab_new for window management or how it interacts with browser_navigate.

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