sentinela_audit_redirects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether the audit is read-only, what redirect checks are performed, whether it needs network access, or what severity model the findings use. "Retorna findings estruturados" gestures at output but discloses no behavior an agent could rely on.

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 scope (domain being audited) front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. No filler, though "(Seção 24)" consumes space without conveying anything to an agent that lacks the reference document.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the return shape; "findings estruturados" is too vague to tell an agent what fields, severity levels, or counts come back. An audit tool whose downstream reporting depends on finding structure needs more than this.

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 exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents project_path as the absolute project root. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is correct; the description adds nothing about the parameter but nothing is missing either.

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 (the "redirects" domain), which cleanly distinguishes it from the ~28 sibling audit_* tools that each target a different domain. The opaque "(Seção 24)" reference adds no clarity without an external checklist, keeping it 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 statement of when to pick this tool over sentinela_audit_full or the other domain audits, and no prerequisites beyond the required project_path. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling family.

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