Playwright MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, implying a write operation. The description aligns with this by describing a selection action that modifies the page state. It adds value by specifying the target is a dropdown, but doesn't detail side effects like page reloads or validation triggers beyond what annotations provide.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate given good annotations. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on error conditions, multi-select behavior, or interaction with other browser tools, leaving room for improvement in contextual guidance.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add semantic details beyond implying 'values' correspond to dropdown options, which is already clear from schema descriptions. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Select an option') and target ('in a dropdown'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like browser_click or browser_type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from browser_fill_form, which might also handle dropdowns, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_fill_form or browser_click for dropdown interaction. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as requiring a page snapshot or element reference from browser_snapshot.

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