grafana_consultar_loki

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only implies a read-only query. It says nothing about default time windows (now-1h to now), the 100-row default limit, whether results are capped server-side, or whether a datasource_uid is required to disambiguate when several Loki sources exist.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence, but the leading '33.' artifact is noise that reads like a truncated list item rather than tool documentation. It is front-loaded with the action, which is good, but the stray numbering hurts a text meant to be parsed by an agent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, but the combination of 5 params at 0% schema coverage and zero annotations leaves the definition incomplete. An agent cannot tell how to format de/ate, what limite affects, or whether datasource_uid is needed when multiple Loki sources are configured.

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 0% and five parameters exist, so the description must compensate; it mentions only the LogQL query itself. The Portuguese time-range params (de/ate), limite, and datasource_uid receive no explanation of accepted formats or defaults, leaving four of five params undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb ('Executar consulta LogQL') and resource ('fluxos de logs no Grafana Loki'), so an agent immediately understands it runs LogQL against Loki. It does not name the sibling it differs from, notably grafana_pesquisar_logs or grafana_consultar_prometheus, so the LogQL-vs-generic-log-search boundary is left implicit.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of grafana_pesquisar_logs, grafana_executar_consulta or the other datasource-specific query tools in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no note that a LogQL string is mandatory and other params are optional, and no exclusions are given.

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