Run frontend tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses numerous behaviors: missing config handling, failure criteria (navigation error, HTTP >= 400, console errors, failing XHRs, empty render), screenshot on failure, and login failure handling. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 well-organized paragraph, front-loaded with 'Two layers against the React frontend.' Each sentence provides essential behavioral details without redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the complexity.

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?

The behavior is thoroughly covered for both modes, including error conditions and outcomes like screenshots. However, it never states what the tool returns upon completion (e.g., a test report or exit codes), which leaves a gap given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter has a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds detail for mode values (specs/crawl/both) but does not explain grep, role, maxPages, or startPaths beyond their schema descriptions.

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 it runs frontend tests with two modes (specs and crawl), distinguishing it from sibling API test tools like qa_run_api. The title 'Run frontend tests' matches the content, and the description elaborates on the exact scope against the React frontend.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, it establishes its domain as frontend testing ('against the React frontend') and explains when to use each mode (specs for fixed Playwright specs, crawl for link navigation). It does not mention when not to use it versus qa_run_api or qa_run_all, so some explicit guidance is missing.

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