Audit the timing domain of a project to detect security and compliance issues, returning structured findings for remediation.
Audita o domínio "timing" (Seção 29). 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 disclosure burden. Beyond "returns structured findings" it says nothing about depth of analysis, whether the audit is read-only, what side effects or permissions are involved, or what findings look like. The '(Seção 29)' pointer is unverifiable without external documentation.
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 domain and return shape front-loaded; nothing is padded. Briefness here edges toward under-specification rather than waste.
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 is the only source of behavioral and return information, yet it explains neither what the "timing" audit inspects nor the structure of the findings. An agent cannot confidently predict the tool's output or coverage.
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 only one parameter, so the schema fully documents project_path as the absolute project root. The description adds no format, constraint, or meaning beyond that, so 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") and resource (the "timing" domain), which is enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like sentinela_audit_full. However it never explains what the timing domain actually covers (timing attacks, race conditions, clock issues), so the scope remains opaque.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the ~25 other audit siblings, nor whether it complements or overlaps sentinela_audit_full. Usage must be entirely inferred from the domain name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.