Playwright MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, implying this is a destructive write operation. The description adds value by specifying 'the page' as the target, clarifying scope beyond the generic 'browser' in the title. It doesn't contradict annotations but could mention effects like potential data loss or closing 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 extremely concise ('Close the page') with no wasted words, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 destructive nature (annotations show destructiveHint=true) and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple action. It could improve by hinting at outcomes (e.g., page closure effects) but isn't incomplete for a basic close operation.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add or detract from the schema, maintaining clarity for a parameterless tool.

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 'Close the page' clearly states the action (close) and target (the page), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like browser_tabs or browser_navigate_back that might also affect page state, so it's not 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a page must be open), exclusions, or related tools like browser_tabs for tab management, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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