Better Playwright MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it waits for page load, handles errors, or returns any output. It mentions waiting for a snapshot via the 'waitForTimeout' parameter in the schema, but this isn't explained in the description itself, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 phrase ('前进到下一页') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.

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 (a navigation action with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after navigation, potential side effects, or how it integrates with other browser tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance 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 '前进到下一页' (Navigate forward to the next page) states the basic action but lacks specificity about what resource it operates on (a browser page) and how it differs from siblings like 'browserNavigateBack'. It's clear but doesn't distinguish from alternatives.

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 like 'browserNavigate' or 'browserNavigateBack', nor any context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a page with forward navigation available). The description alone implies usage but offers no explicit instructions.

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