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. It states the action (close) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is destructive (likely yes, as it closes pages), what 'unmanaged' means, if there are permissions or side effects, or what happens after execution (e.g., confirmation, error handling). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 ('关闭所有未被管理的页面') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand 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 that closes pages), no annotations, no output schema, and the description's lack of behavioral details (e.g., what 'unmanaged' means, effects, or return values), the description is incomplete. It should provide more context to guide safe and correct usage, especially since it involves a potentially destructive action.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it adequately describes the tool's purpose without parameter details.

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 '关闭所有未被管理的页面' (Close all unmanaged pages) clearly states the action (close) and target (unmanaged pages). It distinguishes from siblings like 'closeAllPages' (closes all pages) and 'closePage' (closes a specific page) by specifying 'unmanaged' pages, though 'unmanaged' is not explicitly defined. It's not a tautology of the name 'closePagesWithoutId'.

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 implies usage when you want to close pages that are 'unmanaged', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'closeAllPages' or 'closePage'. The context is clear (closing unmanaged pages), but no exclusions or specific scenarios are provided.

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