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 tool lists pages with title and URL, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, how it handles pagination or large result sets, or what 'managed pages' means (e.g., scope, permissions). For a listing 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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes essential details (title and URL) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 context: no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks completeness for a listing operation—it doesn't cover return format, error handling, or how 'managed pages' are defined. With no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context.

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 parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, but that's fine since there are none. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 tool's purpose: '列出所有管理的页面（包含标题和URL）' translates to 'List all managed pages (including title and URL)'. It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('managed pages'), and what information is included ('title and URL'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling 'listPagesWithoutId', which is a similar listing tool.

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. It doesn't mention when to use it over 'listPagesWithoutId' or other page-related tools like 'createPage' or 'closeAllPages'. There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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