sentinela_audit_deserialization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that findings are structured; it does not state that the scan is non-destructive/read-only, whether it needs prior stack detection, whether it has side effects, or any permission/rate-limit considerations.

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, front-loaded sentences with no waste; the domain and section are stated first. It is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter audit tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but adequate to call it. The unexplained 'Seção 28' reference and the absence of any note on how findings relate to report/fix siblings leave gaps.

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% and the single project_path parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the path (e.g., whether it must contain a config, or relate to another tool's output).

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/domain (deserialization, Seção 28), and the domain naming naturally distinguishes it from its audit_* siblings. It does not, however, say what the audit actually inspects or what a finding covers.

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 sentinela_audit_full (which presumably covers all domains) or the other domain audits, no prerequisites, and no sequencing hints. Usage can only be inferred from the name.

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