grafana_consultar_permissoes

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. It conveys only that this is a read of ACL entries; it does not say whether admin permissions are required, whether inheritance from parent folders is included, or what happens if the resource has no explicit ACL. An output schema exists, which excuses return-value detail, but the access/auth behavior remains undisclosed.

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 filler; the only waste is the leading ordinal '96.' which is an artifact of an external list rather than tool documentation.

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 tool with two completely undocumented parameters and zero annotations, the description does not provide enough to call it correctly without guessing valid values for tipo_recurso and the ID format. The existing output schema covers return values, but request-side completeness is missing.

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?

Both required parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The mention of 'dashboard ou pasta' loosely maps to tipo_recurso, but no allowed values, ID format, or distinction between numeric dashboard IDs and folder UIDs is given.

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 (consultar) and resource (permissões ACL) scoped to a dashboard or folder, which distinguishes it from the mutating siblings grafana_gerenciar_permissoes_dashboard/pasta. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the distinction relies on the agent inferring that 'consultar' is read-only versus 'gerenciar'.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the two permission-management siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g. admin rights needed to read ACLs). Usage is only implied by the verb 'consultar'.

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