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 saving to a temporary directory and returning a file path, which adds some context about output behavior. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires an active browser session, potential side effects (e.g., page loading), error handling, or performance implications (e.g., large page sizes).

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 that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and result but misses details like error cases, file format specifics, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing 'createPage' first). For a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully complete.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions between 'clip', 'element', and 'fullPage'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the action ('获取页面截图并保存到临时目录') and the outcome ('返回文件路径'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the resource (page screenshot) and the result (file path). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'captureSnapshot' or 'getPageSnapshot', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 'captureSnapshot' or 'getPageSnapshot'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active page) or exclusions (e.g., not for PDFs). Usage is implied through the action but without explicit comparison to siblings.

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