Playwright MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, suggesting a safe, non-destructive operation that may involve external changes. The description adds context by specifying what triggers the wait (text appearance/disappearance or time), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on timeout behavior, error handling, or interaction with other browser states, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. It directly states the tool's purpose and conditions, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's scope, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 (waiting with multiple triggers), annotations provide safety and openness hints, but no output schema exists. The description covers the basic behavior but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It's adequate as a starting point but incomplete for full contextual understanding, especially without output information.

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. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning text and time conditions, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions (e.g., using multiple parameters simultaneously) or provide examples. Since the schema covers parameters well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with no significant value added.

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 tool's purpose: waiting for text to appear, disappear, or for a time period to pass. It specifies the action ('wait for') and the conditions, distinguishing it from other browser tools that perform actions like clicking or navigating. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential timing-related siblings beyond the listed tools.

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 scenarios where waiting is preferred over other actions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used after navigation or form submission, leaving usage context implied but unspecified.

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