aflpp.preflight_checks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the checks performed, which is useful, but it omits what happens if checks fail, whether the tool makes any changes, or what the return value looks like.

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 leads with the verb and purpose, followed by a concise parenthetical list of checks. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately lists what checks run, but leaves gaps around return format, failure behavior, and prerequisites such as whether the workspace must be initialized. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 only adds meaning for corpus_name by tying it to 'corpus non-empty', while workspace and target_cmd remain unexplained. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool.

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 as 'lightweight preflight checks' before afl-fuzz. It enumerates three concrete checks (core_pattern, CPU scaling, corpus non-empty), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_fuzz or dry_run.

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 phrase 'before starting afl-fuzz' provides clear temporal context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the 'before starting' guidance is unambiguous.

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