aflpp.list_findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that IDs are stable (useful for referencing) and that findings have paths, but does not clarify the return format, whether the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies it), or any state requirements such as needing a completed fuzzing campaign.

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 with no filler words, front-loaded with the action and object. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool lacks important context. It doesn't mention how to interpret the output or how the stable IDs can be used with other tools (e.g., aflpp.repro_crash or aflpp.crash_report), leaving the agent to infer the tool's role in the workflow.

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 for the parameters. It doesn't explain what 'workspace' or 'job_name' refer to in the AFL++ context. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but no additional semantic meaning is given, leaving the coverage gap unaddressed.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('crash and hang findings'), and adds that they have 'stable IDs and paths.' It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aflpp.crash_report or aflpp.campaign_summary, but the resource is specific enough to be understood.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as an active fuzzing job or how to obtain job names, nor any exclusions or contextual hints.

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