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 it lists pages but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output returns, potential performance considerations, or how 'unmanaged' is defined. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand immediately.

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 tool has no parameters (simplifying context) but lacks annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't address output format, error conditions, or what constitutes 'unmanaged' pages. For a listing tool with no structured behavioral data, it should provide more context about results.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a 4 because it focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter discussion, though not a 5 as it could briefly note the lack of parameters for clarity.

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 ('列出所有' = list all) and resource ('未被管理的页面' = unmanaged pages), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'listPages' (which presumably lists all pages including managed ones), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 context by specifying '未被管理的' (unmanaged), suggesting this tool should be used when you need pages that aren't managed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'listPages' or other page-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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