Audit a project for rate-limiting weaknesses and return structured findings, helping AI agents detect missing or weak throttling controls locally.
Audita o domínio "rate-limiting" (Seção 5). 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 burden. It implies a read/audit operation ('Retorna findings estruturados') but discloses nothing about authorization requirements, whether it modifies project state, or how long it may take.
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 audited domain and ending with the return type. Efficient, with no wasted text, though it is so terse it sacrifices needed context.
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 audit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain the structure of the 'findings' it claims to return, nor the operational context (read-only vs mutating, permissions). It leaves the agent under-informed relative to the tool's complexity.
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 the single required parameter project_path is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the specific domain/resource (rate-limiting, Seção 5), and it maps cleanly onto the sentinela_audit_* sibling naming convention, so the agent can distinguish it from the other audit tools without guessing.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance. It never states whether this should run standalone or as part of sentinela_audit_full, nor what prerequisites apply. Nothing routes the agent between this and the many similar audit siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.