Runs local static security and compliance audits on the mutations domain (Section 2) and returns structured findings for remediation.
Audita o domínio "mutations" (Seção 2). 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that it returns structured findings; it says nothing about what is inspected, whether it mutates the project, permissions needed, or how findings are shaped.
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, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. It is lean rather than padded, though it is arguably too terse for the missing guidance rather than over-long.
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, the description should explain the finding structure and the audit's scope. It gestures at "findings estruturados" but leaves the return shape and domain coverage undefined.
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 a single parameter, so the schema already documents project_path fully. The description adds no syntax or interpretation beyond what the schema provides; 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") plus the resource ("domínio mutations, Seção 2"), which distinguishes it from the ~20 sibling audit tools that each target a different security domain. The purpose is clear enough to select it over the other audit_* tools, though "mutations" would benefit from a one-line definition.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as sentinela_audit_full or sentinela_audit_mass_assignment. The domain label is the only selector, and it is left for the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.