discover_stable_locators

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

No annotations accompany the tool, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'accessibility-first priority' but fails to state whether the tool modifies state, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Key behaviors like app lifecycle or read-only intent are absent.

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 sentence, which is concise but severely under-informative for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. It lacks structure and fails to front-load critical information.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It omits return values, parameter details, and context about when to invoke it, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 0%, meaning parameters have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (applicationUrl, pageName, headless, scenarioSteps, allowProduction), leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage.

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: using Playwright to discover stable locators with accessibility-first priority. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like generate_playwright_test or create_bug. However, 'stable locators' could be more precisely 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Given the presence of related sibling tools (e.g., run_playwright_test), explicit differentiation is missing.

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