Better Playwright MCP

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 states the action ('关闭' - close) but doesn't clarify what 'close' entails (e.g., whether it destroys page state, requires confirmation, or affects browser sessions). It also omits details like error handling, side effects, or performance implications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 ('关闭所有管理的页面') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation operation closing multiple pages), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'managed' means, what happens after closing (e.g., return values, errors), or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a potentially destructive action, more context is needed to ensure safe 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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 applies as it doesn't compensate for missing info but aligns with the schema's completeness.

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 '关闭所有管理的页面' (Close all managed pages) clearly states the action (close) and target (all managed pages). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'closePage' (singular) and 'closePageByIndex' (specific index), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'managed' means.

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 like 'closePage', 'closePagesWithoutId', or 'listPages'. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., whether pages must be open), exclusions, or typical scenarios. Without such context, an agent might misuse it when a more targeted tool is appropriate.

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