sentinela_audit_cors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says it returns structured findings. It does not state whether the audit is read-only, whether it touches project files, what permissions or services it needs, or what the findings' severity/shape 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the audited domain and with zero wasted words. The second sentence ("Retorna findings estruturados") is mild filler but harmless.

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 one-parameter audit tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it names the domain and says findings come back structured. It omits what a finding contains, how the audit relates to the checklist section, and whether other audits must run first.

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 100%; the single project_path parameter is fully documented in the schema as an absolute path to the project root. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Audita") and a specific resource (o domínio "cors"), plus a checklist anchor ("Seção 19"). This distinguishes it from the many sibling audit_* tools by domain, though the "Seção 19" reference is opaque without external context.

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 on when to run this versus siblings like sentinela_audit_full or sentinela_audit_headers, no prerequisites (e.g. run sentinela_detect_stack first?), and no mention of ordering within an audit workflow. Only the domain name implies usage.

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