sentinela_audit_webhooks

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. Beyond 'Retorna findings estruturados' it says nothing about whether this is a read-only static scan, whether it touches or writes project files, what a finding contains, or how findings are reported. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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. The 'Seção 27' fragment is the one element that doesn't clearly earn its place, keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return-shape information. Claiming 'findings estruturados' without describing the structure, severity model, or whether project_path must point at an already-scanned project leaves the agent under-informed for a domain audit step in a larger pipeline.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'project_path' as the absolute project root. The description adds no further parameter meaning, but baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 ('o domínio webhooks'), and the domain name itself separates it from the ~25 sibling audit tools that each target a different domain. The '(Seção 27)' reference adds no meaning an agent can act on, since the taxonomy it points to isn't defined anywhere in the definition.

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 indication of when to run this domain audit versus sentinela_audit_full (which presumably covers all domains) or when a webhook audit is warranted. No prerequisites, no ordering relative to sentinela_detect_stack, no exclusions.

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