Daytona Playwright MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential performance implications, what happens with invisible text, how it handles multiple elements matching the selector, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks the behavioral context needed for a tool interacting with a browser.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential function.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema description coverage, and this is a relatively simple read operation, the description is minimally complete. However, for a browser interaction tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about how text extraction works, what 'visible text' means, and potential limitations. The description meets the minimum viable threshold but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'specific elements' which relates to the selector parameter, but this is already covered in the schema description. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Get') and resource ('text content from the page or specific elements'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like browser_get_html (which gets HTML) and browser_get_attribute (which gets attributes), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.

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 implies when to use this tool (to extract text content) versus alternatives like browser_get_html for HTML structure, but doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use scenarios or name specific sibling tools. The parameter description for 'selector' provides some implicit guidance ('If not provided, gets all visible text'), but there's no explicit comparison with other text-extraction methods or context about when this is preferred over other tools.

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