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 mentions scrolling but does not cover aspects like whether this action is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects (e.g., page reload), or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 with 3 parameters (one required), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a browser interaction tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 input schema already documents all parameters well. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 '滚动到页面或元素顶部' clearly states the action (scroll to top) and target (page or element), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'scrollToBottom', though the distinction is implied by the action name. This makes it clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 for scrolling to the top of a page or element, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scrollToBottom' or other navigation tools. It offers some context through the parameter description for 'selector', but no clear when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are stated.

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