sentinela_audit_xss

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, yet it only states that findings are returned. It does not disclose whether the scan is read-only, what it inspects, how long it may take, or what "findings estruturados" actually contains.

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 purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that it borders on under-specification.

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 should say more about what is scanned and what the structured findings look like. As written, an agent knows only the domain and that something is returned.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents project_path as the absolute root directory. The description adds no further semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb ("Audita") and a clearly scoped resource ("o domínio 'xss' (Seção 18)"), so an agent can tell this audits the XSS domain rather than secrets or SSRF. It does not, however, explicitly explain how it differs from the many other sentinela_audit_* siblings beyond the domain label already in the name.

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 use this tool versus the other audit siblings, no prerequisites, and no ordering guidance relative to sentinela_audit_full or sentinela_detect_stack. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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