Run a complete security audit on a project using its root path; receive all findings, a risk score, and a checklist to guide remediation.
Executa auditoria completa de segurança no projeto. Retorna AuditReport com todos os findings, score e checklist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | Yes | Caminho absoluto para o diretório raiz do projeto |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 discloses the return contents (findings, score, checklist) but says nothing about side effects — whether it only reads the project or writes files, whether it invokes all sub-audits, scan duration, or required permissions.
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 that each earn their place: the first establishes what runs, the second what comes back. Purpose is front-loaded with zero filler.
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 an orchestrator-level audit with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits the relationship to generate_report/compare_reports and get_checklist, and gives no sense of scope or cost, which an agent choosing between this and the single-concern audits would want.
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 parameter (project_path, 'Caminho absoluto para o diretório raiz do projeto') is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no constraint, format, or expected-value detail 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 and resource: 'Executa auditoria completa de segurança no projeto', and names the return artifact (AuditReport). The adjective 'completa' implicitly contrasts with the granular sibling audits (sentinela_audit_secrets, sentinela_audit_xss, etc.), but the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not statement. The word 'completa' implies this is the umbrella scan to run when you want everything, versus the ~25 single-concern sibling audits, but the agent must infer that routing decision rather than being told it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.