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 only states the action ('等待') without details on execution (e.g., blocking vs. non-blocking, error handling, or effects on browser state). For a tool with potential side effects in automation, this is inadequate, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 ('等待指定毫秒数'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 automation tool with two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool invocation. For a tool in this domain, more context is needed to ensure proper use.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema ('等待的毫秒数' for 'ms', '页面ID' for 'pageId'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why both parameters are needed or their interaction. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters.

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 '等待指定毫秒数' (wait for specified milliseconds) states a clear purpose with a verb ('等待') and resource ('毫秒数'), but it's vague about context. It doesn't specify this is for browser/page operations or distinguish it from generic timing tools, though sibling tools suggest a browser automation context. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about its domain.

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 use cases like waiting for page loads, animations, or delays in browser automation, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'waitForSelector' for comparison. Without context, users might misuse it for generic delays outside its intended scope.

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