Playwright MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide significant behavioral information (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true). The description adds minimal context beyond this - it specifies the action is 'hover over element' but doesn't explain what 'destructive' means in this context (e.g., might trigger JavaScript events, change page state). The description doesn't contradict annotations but adds limited behavioral context.

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 maximally concise at just four words ('Hover over element on page'). Every word contributes essential meaning, and there's zero wasted text. The structure is simple and immediately communicates the core functionality.

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's moderate complexity (browser interaction with destructive potential) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Annotations provide safety information, but the description doesn't explain what happens after hovering (e.g., tooltips appearing, menu expansions) or potential side effects. For a destructive browser action, more context would be helpful.

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 100% schema description coverage, both parameters (element and ref) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema fields. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 'Hover over element on page' clearly states the action (hover) and target (element on page), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many sibling browser interaction tools (like browser_click or browser_press_key) beyond the specific hover action.

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. With 22 sibling browser tools including browser_click, browser_press_key, and browser_type, there's no indication of when hovering is appropriate versus clicking, typing, or other interactions. The description lacks any context about typical use cases for hovering.

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