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 tool generates PDFs but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific page states, what happens on failure, or any performance/rate limit considerations. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavior undefined.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately concise without unnecessary words, though it could be more informative given the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that performs a non-trivial PDF generation operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains, error conditions, or how it interacts with page state. For a tool with 4 parameters and significant functionality, this minimal description leaves too much undefined.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format options beyond 'A4' or clarify pageId requirements). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 '获取页面的PDF快照' (Get PDF snapshot of a page) states the basic action and resource (page), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'getPageSnapshot' or 'captureSnapshot'. It specifies PDF output but lacks detail about what constitutes a 'snapshot' versus other capture tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getPageSnapshot' or 'getScreenshot'. The description implies it's for PDF generation from pages, but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where it's preferred over other capture methods.

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