Compare two AuditReports to reveal new and resolved findings, and track how the security score changed between audits.
Compara dois AuditReports (antes vs depois). Mostra findings novos, resolvidos e evolução do score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_after | Yes | JSON string do AuditReport atual | |
| report_before | Yes | JSON string do AuditReport anterior |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return content: new findings, resolved findings, and score evolution. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure of what the comparison produces, though it omits whether the operation is read-only/side-effect-free and what format the diff is returned in.
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 zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the output summary follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 a two-parameter, no-annotation comparison tool the description covers the essential actions and the shape of the result, which matters since no output schema exists. It falls short only on procedural context (where the two reports come from) and any read-only guarantee.
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%, so both parameters ('JSON string do AuditReport anterior/atual') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format detail, ordering rules, or constraints beyond what the schema states, 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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Compara dois AuditReports' states exactly what the tool does, and the parenthetical '(antes vs depois)' clarifies the comparison axis. It is clearly distinct in function from the sibling audit_* tools, though it never names or contrasts with siblings such as sentinela_generate_report.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it needs two AuditReports, presumably produced by sentinela_generate_report or the audit tools, but the description never states when to call this versus re-running an audit or reading a report directly. No prerequisites about how the two report strings are obtained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.