aflpp.campaign_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states it 'parses' fuzzer_stats, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly say whether it's non-destructive, what happens if fuzzer_stats files are missing, or whether it requires specific directory layouts. The description lacks important context about side effects and edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. It avoids redundant phrasing and is appropriately sized for a tool with only two parameters and no output schema. Every word adds value.

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 absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough. It doesn't describe the format of the summary, what metrics are included, error handling, or how it relates to sibling tools. A multi-instance campaign summarizer needs more context than a one-liner provides.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'each instance directory', which gives a hint that 'campaign_name' likely refers to a directory containing instance subdirectories, but it doesn't explain 'workspace' or provide any detailed meaning for either parameter. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and identifies the resource ('multi-instance campaign') with a mechanism ('parsing fuzzer_stats for each instance directory'). This clearly distinguishes it from more general status tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'whatsup' or 'status'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., campaign must exist, fuzzers must be running or finished), exclusions, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. The only implicit hint is 'multi-instance', but that's not enough.

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