sentinela_audit_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only that it returns structured findings, without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what the 'dependencies' domain covers, whether it requires a build/manifest to exist, or what the findings contain.

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 action and domain, with no filler. It is efficient, though the 'Seção 21' reference is opaque to an agent without the external spec.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain the scope of the dependency audit and what 'structured findings' look like. Instead it leaves the agent with only the domain name and an external section reference.

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 coverage is 100% and the single project_path parameter is fully documented in the schema as an absolute path to the project root. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 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+resource: auditing the 'dependencies' domain. An agent can tell it is one domain audit among many. However it offers no differentiation from the ~28 sibling audit tools or from sentinela_audit_full, so the boundary is only inferable from the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as sentinela_audit_full which presumably covers the same ground. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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