sentinela_audit_request_limits

Does 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 only says it "returns structured findings" – no indication of read-only nature, whether it scans the filesystem, execution cost, or what a finding contains. This is a significant gap for an audit tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentences with no padding. Terse but efficient; nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should at least explain what the "request-limits" domain covers. It leaves the domain semantics and the meaning of "findings" entirely undefined, which is inadequate given the crowded sibling set.

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 one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents project_path. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 resource (the "request-limits" domain, Section 32), which is better than a tautology. However, the domain name is ambiguous next to the sibling sentinela_audit_rate_limiting, and the description does nothing to differentiate the two, leaving an agent unsure which to call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With 30+ sibling audit tools, the description gives the agent no basis for choosing this domain over rate limiting or the full audit.

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