preview_browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Playwright MCP 연동' (Playwright MCP integration), which adds some context about the underlying technology, but fails to describe key behavioral traits: whether this opens a browser window (hinted by the parameter but not stated in description), if it's read-only or modifies state, performance implications, or what the preview output looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence. The additional note about Playwright integration is relevant but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured to separate functional and technical details.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'preview' entails (e.g., opens a browser tab, generates a temporary URL), the scope of the canvas being previewed, or any dependencies. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves too much ambiguity for effective agent use.

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 one parameter ('openBrowser') fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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: '현재 캔버스를 브라우저에서 미리봅니다' (previews the current canvas in a browser). It specifies the verb ('미리봅니다' - previews) and resource ('현재 캔버스' - current canvas), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_png' or 'export_svg', which also involve output/viewing operations.

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 mentions Playwright MCP integration, which hints at a technical context, but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., for testing designs vs. exporting files) or compare it to sibling tools like export functions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, usage is implied rather than clarified.

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