Retrieve a security checklist with pass/fail status for a project based on findings from its last audit, so you can track vulnerabilities and remediation progress.
Retorna checklist de segurança com status pass/fail baseado nos findings do último audit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | Yes | Caminho absoluto para o diretório raiz do projeto |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retorna'/'get' implies a read-only operation and the dependency on a prior audit is disclosed, which is genuine context. It does not say what happens when no audit exists yet, whether results are cached, or how pass/fail is computed.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the return value and appends the scoping condition. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough that the derived-view semantics take a moment to parse.
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 low-complexity, one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it returns a checklist derived from the last audit. The main gap is the unstated behavior when no prior audit exists.
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% with a single 'project_path' parameter fully documented as an absolute path to the project root. The description adds no further parameter meaning, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Retorna checklist de segurança') plus the derived nature of the output (pass/fail status from the last audit's findings). It is distinguishable from the audit_* siblings and generate_report, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.
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: 'baseado nos findings do último audit' hints that an audit must have been run first, which is a useful prerequisite signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives like sentinela_generate_report or sentinela_compare_reports.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.