sentinel_audit_workspace

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Run the full sentinel sweep.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies files, what happens on failure, or whether it can be safely run repeatedly. The name 'audit' hints at non-mutating behavior, but that is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the scope, and the included components without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 is simple with one required parameter, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description covers the core action and scope well, though it omits side-effect and usage details that are captured as weaknesses in other dimensions.

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 input schema only provides 'path' with no description, so the phrase 'over a workspace path' adds meaningful context that the parameter should point to a workspace. However, it does not specify path format, whether it must be a directory, or absolute vs. relative paths, leaving some 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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and a specific resource ('full sentinel sweep over a workspace path'), and explicitly names the two components (AST invariants and secret scan). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling single-purpose tools sentinel_check_ast_invariants and sentinel_scan_for_secrets.

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 'full sentinel sweep' with the parenthetical listing its components makes it clear this tool is the combined option versus the individual sibling checks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied distinction.

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