run_functional_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add one genuinely useful non-obvious fact: the tool requires chrome-devtools-mcp to be running. It omits other behavioral traits an agent needs, such as expected runtime, whether it navigates away from or mutates page state, and handling of failures or timeouts.

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?

Front-loads the purpose followed by a scannable bulleted list of analyzed element types, and closes with usage plus the dependency note. The bullets are slightly padded but every line is informative and there is no filler.

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 browser-automation test tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what comes back (per-area findings, pass/fail, error list). It never describes the result shape, and the chrome-devtools-mcp dependency is mentioned but not elaborated on (install, config, failure behavior).

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 all four parameters including their default values are already documented in the schema. The description's list of analyzed categories loosely maps to the checkForms/checkLinks/checkInteractions flags but adds no new syntax, constraints, or interaction semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Perform functional testing on a web application') and enumerates the four areas of analysis, which lets an agent distinguish it from run_visual_test or run_performance_test. However, it never names its closest siblings, and its inclusion of 'accessibility' and 'broken link detection' overlaps run_accessibility_test and run_seo_test, leaving boundaries ambiguous.

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?

'Use this tool when you need to verify that a website's features work correctly' is a stated use case but is generic enough to cover almost any sibling test tool. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of run_full_test or other alternatives, and no ordering or prerequisite workflow advice.

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