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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it triggers page reloads), error conditions (e.g., if the selector is invalid), or performance implications (e.g., timeouts). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 of a browser interaction tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens after scrolling (e.g., does it return a snapshot?), error handling, or integration with sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain why 'selector' is optional or how 'waitForTimeout' affects the operation). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the action ('滚动到' meaning 'scroll to') and the target ('页面或元素底部' meaning 'page or element bottom'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scrollToTop' or 'waitForSelector', which might have overlapping use cases for element interaction.

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 scenarios where scrolling is necessary (e.g., loading dynamic content) or when other tools like 'waitForSelector' might be more appropriate. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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