Audit input-validation flaws in a project and return structured findings to guide security fixes and compliance.
Audita o domínio "input-validation" (Seção 3). Retorna findings estruturados.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that structured findings are returned, but says nothing about whether the audit is read-only, what it reads, whether the project must be pre-scanned, or any rate/permission constraints.
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 with zero waste and the domain identifier front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be genuinely helpful.
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?
No output schema and no annotations mean the description must cover behavior and return format. It only gestures at 'structured findings' without describing their shape, and offers no usage context for navigating 30+ sibling audit tools.
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?
Only one parameter (project_path) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about the path, so 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/domain ('input-validation', Section 3), and says it returns structured findings. It is distinguishable from the many sibling audit_* tools by the named domain, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to alternatives such as sentinela_audit_full for whole-project coverage or sentinela_generate_report for output. Usage context is left entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.