aflpp.build_instrumented

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions copying the artifact and running a 'constrained' build, but does not explain what 'constrained' means, whether the build modifies the original source tree, requires network access, or has other side effects. It also omits details about potential long-running behavior or the significance of the timeout_ms parameter.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, immediately stating the primary action and outcome. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested build_options, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter semantics, constraints, or any additional context needed for a user to correctly invoke the tool. The description provides only a high-level summary and leaves almost all operational details unaddressed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description itself adds almost no parameter semantics. It references 'build command' and 'artifact' but does not explain the format of build_cmd, the meaning of profile options, the structure of build_options, or how workspace/target_name/project_path/artifact_relpath relate to each other. For a tool with 8 parameters and a nested object, this is severely inadequate.

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 that the tool runs a build command using AFL++ compiler wrappers and copies the resulting artifact to the targets/ directory. This is a specific verb+resource+scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool aflpp.build_cmplog_variant, which likely serves a similar purpose but for cmplog builds.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies usage for instrumented builds, but a user is left to infer when this should be preferred over other build-related tools in the sibling list.

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