aflpp.showmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only states the action ('run afl-showmap') and output ('summary'), but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, error conditions, or whether it modifies state. This is minimal but not enough given the zero annotation coverage.

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 fluff, but it is under-specifying. It's concise in style but lacks necessary detail, so it's not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description is far from complete: it has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the description only provides a high-level action. It doesn't explain the composition of target_cmd, the meaning of the trace summary, or the effects of the limit parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter documentation, the description adds no meaningful information about the five parameters. It only hints that 'single testcase' relates to testcase_path, but leaves workspace, target_cmd, timeout_ms, and mem_limit_mb entirely unexplained.

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 afl-showmap') and resource ('single testcase') and mentions the output ('summary of the trace'). It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_testcase.

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 a single testcase trace summary, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, no exclusions, and no alternative tools. There's a clear context (single testcase) but it's only implied.

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