Better Playwright MCP

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 mentions the action ('输入文本' - input text) but doesn't describe what happens after input (e.g., whether it triggers events, waits for page updates, or handles errors). It also doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or side effects like page navigation after submission. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 in Chinese ('在页面元素中输入文本'), which is appropriately sized and front-loaded. There's no wasted text, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 complexity of a browser automation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., success/failure status), error conditions, or how it interacts with other tools like waitForSelector. For a mutation tool in a rich sibling set, this lacks necessary context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'ref' relates to XPath or what 'slowly' entails in practice). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '在页面元素中输入文本' (Input text into a page element) states a clear verb ('输入' - input) and resource ('页面元素' - page element), but it's vague about what distinguishes this tool from siblings like browserPressKey or browserSelectOption. It doesn't specify that this is for typing text into input fields, which would help differentiate it from other text-related actions.

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 when to choose browserType over browserPressKey (for key presses) or browserSelectOption (for dropdowns), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an active page or element reference. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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