aflpp.dry_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It explains what the tool checks and that it runs directly against the target, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., workspace modifications), authentication needs, or failure outcomes. This is a moderate amount of behavioral context.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes relevant qualifiers ('short', 'directly against the target', 'not afl-fuzz'). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values and parameter usage. It hints at outputs (checks) but does not describe result format or how success/failure is reported. It also leaves parameter roles unspecified. The description is functional but not fully comprehensive for a tool with this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It fails to mention any parameter names or clarify the roles of runs, timeout_ms, corpus_name, or target_cmd beyond a generic 'harness validation' context. The agent is left without guidance on parameter semantics.

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 'Run' and identifies the resource: a short harness validation directly against the target. It clearly distinguishes from afl-fuzz, a sibling tool, and enumerates the checks performed (input mode, stability, basic performance signals), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 use before full fuzzing ('short harness validation') and contrasts with afl-fuzz, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like start_fuzz or showmap, nor does it state when not to use this tool, leaving some guidance implicit.

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