Better Playwright MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (close page) but lacks details on behavioral traits: e.g., whether this destroys page content, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns any output. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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 sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 complexity (a mutation tool closing pages), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'close' entails, potential errors, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'index' documented as '页面索引' (page index). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as index format or range. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 '通过索引关闭页面' (close page by index) states the verb (close) and resource (page) with a method (by index), which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'closePage' or 'closeAllPages'—it's vague about how this differs from those alternatives, leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous in context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'closePage' or 'closeAllPages'. The description implies usage by index but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal context for selection among siblings.

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