sentinela_audit_uploads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says only that it returns structured findings; it does not state that it is read-only, whether it modifies or writes anything to the project, what authentication or environment it needs, or whether it is expensive/slow. Only the return-shape hint ("findings estruturados") adds anything.

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 no padding, and the resource being audited is front-loaded. The "(Seção 10)" parenthetical is cryptic but costs almost nothing in length.

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 leaves important gaps: it never says the operation is non-destructive, what class of issues the "uploads" domain covers, or how findings are structured/aggregated. An agent can invoke it, but cannot predict its behavior or cost.

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 (project_path), which the schema already documents as the absolute project root. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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+resource: audits the "uploads" domain, and it names that domain explicitly, which distinguishes it from the ~30 sibling sentinela_audit_* tools each covering a different domain. The reference to "Seção 10" is opaque without external context, so the scope of "uploads" is only partially self-explanatory.

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 guidance on when to pick this narrowly-scoped audit over sentinela_audit_full or the other domain audits, nor any stated prerequisites or ordering. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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