sct_add_fuzzing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Add fuzz testing' implies mutation of a project, but the description does not disclose what files it creates or modifies, whether it overwrites existing tests, whether it requires network access or API keys, or what frameworks it targets. For a project-modifying tool, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently sized, though brevity here comes at the cost of substance, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented api_key parameter, the description leaves essential questions unanswered: what happens when it runs, what artifacts appear, whether the contract types are supported, and why api_key is needed. Even for a low-complexity tool, the minimal description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 50%: directory is documented as 'Project directory', but api_key has no description and the tool description adds nothing about either parameter. The agent cannot determine why api_key is needed or whether it is optional for local fuzzing. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 states a verb ('Add') and a resource ('fuzz testing for contracts'), expanding the 'sct' prefix into 'contracts'. However, it largely restates the name, and the term 'contracts' is ambiguous — it could mean smart contracts (given the sct_generate_tests/sct_add_coverage siblings) or API contracts. It does not say what kind of fuzz testing is added or to what project type, leaving the agent to infer meaning from sibling naming conventions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like sct_generate_tests, sct_add_coverage, and hardhat_add_tests exist, but the description never distinguishes when fuzzing is appropriate vs. test generation or coverage, nor does it mention prerequisites like an existing contract project or a supported framework.

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