sentinela_generate_report

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 does not say whether the report is written to disk or returned inline, whether it requires a prior audit run, whether it overwrites an existing file, or how long it takes; for a one-parameter generator with zero annotation coverage this is a real 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse for a tool with this many unanswered behavioral questions.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth, yet it leaves the output destination, the dependency on prior audits, and the scope of the 'complete audit' unexplained. An agent cannot confidently predict what calling it will do.

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 explains project_path as the absolute project root. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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 (generate), resource (security report), format (Markdown), and source (from a complete audit). That is more than a tautology, though it never names a sibling or clarifies how it differs from sentinela_compare_reports or the many sentinela_audit_* tools.

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?

The phrase 'a partir de uma auditoria completa' hints at an ordering prerequisite, but the description never says whether the audits must be run first, whether they are run internally, or when to prefer this over compare_reports. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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