sentinela_audit_logging

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only says it "returns structured findings". It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it writes report files, what the findings contain, or any execution constraints. Since no output schema exists either, this return-value statement is the only behavioral hint and it is very thin.

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 the audited domain front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Nothing is wasted, though the terse "Seção 22" reference is opaque without supporting documentation.

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 simple single-parameter audit tool this is minimally adequate: the agent knows what domain is audited and that findings are returned. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the read-only nature of the audit and the shape of the findings.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Caminho absoluto para o diretório raiz do projeto"), so the schema already documents it fully and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about project_path, but none is needed.

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?

The description states a specific verb ("Audita") and a specific resource/domain ("logging", qualified as Seção 22), which lets an agent distinguish it from the other sentinela_audit_* siblings at a glance. It does not, however, contrast itself with sentinela_audit_full or explain what makes the logging domain distinct, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sentinela_audit_full or any overlapping sibling. Usage is only implied by the domain name in the title; no prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions are given.

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