aflpp.build_cmplog_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: setting an environment variable, requiring LLVM mode, and copying the artifact to a specific directory. This gives agents a solid understanding of the tool's actions, though it doesn't detail potential overwrites or prerequisite checks.

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-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and includes the key mechanism. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

Despite having 7 parameters and a nested build_options object, the description is minimal and does not explain when to use the tool, what output to expect, or how parameters interact. The lack of annotation and output schema amplifies the need for more context, which is not provided.

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 0% and the description does not explain individual parameters such as artifact_relpath, build_options, or timeout_ms. It only implicitly references build command and artifact, leaving most parameters ambiguous beyond their names.

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: building a CMPLOG-instrumented variant by setting AFL_LLVM_CMPLOG=1 and copying the artifact to the targets/ directory. It includes a specific verb ('Build'), resource ('CMPLOG-instrumented variant'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_instrumented.

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 implies usage for CMPLOG instrumentation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others like build_instrumented. It gives clear context on the mechanism (LLVM mode) but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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