aflpp.import_corpus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destination path and the source location constraint, but does not state whether files are copied or moved, whether existing corpora are overwritten, whether the directory is created automatically, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 of about 20 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Import', and contains no redundant information. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 3 simple parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description gives the core operation and path template, but omits prerequisites (e.g., workspace must be initialized), overwrite behavior, and return values. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly describes all three parameters: workspace appears in the path, src_path is the source file/directory, and corpus_name is the destination name. However, it does not provide specific formats, allowed values, or whether paths are relative/absolute, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 action (import), the resource (seed corpus), and the destination path (workspaces/<ws>/in/<corpus_name>), with a source constraint (file or directory within workspace root). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_corpus or minimize_corpus.

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 seeding an initial corpus before fuzzing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or any exclusions. The constraint that the source must be within the workspace root provides some context but no direct 'use this when' guidance.

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