sentinela_audit_error_messages

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. "Retorna findings estruturados" vaguely hints at the return shape, but it omits what is inspected, whether the operation is read-only, permission requirements, and scope limits. For an audit tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The only weakness is the cryptic "(Seção 4)" aside, which consumes space without informing the agent.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and dense sibling overlap, the description leaves too much unspecified. It never says what constitutes a finding or how this audit differs from error_handling, so an agent lacks the context needed to call it correctly.

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 there is only one parameter (project_path), which the schema already documents as the absolute project root. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, 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?

It names a verb ("Audita") and a resource ("domínio error-messages"), so the core action is discernible. But "Section 4" is an opaque external reference, and nothing distinguishes it from the very similar sibling sentinela_audit_error_handling. An agent cannot confidently separate the two without guesswork.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. In a family of ~25 sibling audit_* tools, the description gives no signal about how this domain overlaps with error_handling or when to pick it.

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