Playwright MCP

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying what triggers the wait (text appearance/disappearance or time), but doesn't elaborate on timeout behavior, error handling, or interaction with other browser tools. 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the text and time conditions for clarity.

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 (waiting with multiple triggers), annotations cover safety and scope, and schema fully documents parameters. However, without an output schema, the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., success/failure, timeout errors), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior in practice.

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%, fully documenting all three parameters (text, textGone, time). The description mentions these parameters generically ('text to appear or disappear' and 'specified time') but adds no extra semantic details like format examples, mutual exclusivity, or default behaviors, so it meets the baseline without enhancing understanding.

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 as waiting for text to appear/disappear or for time to pass, which is a specific verb+action combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like browser_handle_dialog or browser_console_messages that might also involve waiting for specific conditions, though the core functionality is well-defined.

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 scenarios where waiting is preferred over other actions (e.g., using browser_handle_dialog for pop-ups) or prerequisites like needing an active browser session, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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