grafana_consultar_slos

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the topic: no statement that it is a read-only listing, no note about which Grafana SLO backend/version is queried, and no mention of behavior when no SLOs are configured. The output schema covers return values, but the operational profile remains blank.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, so it is efficient, but the leading '88.' is pure noise and the sentence is topic-only rather than front-loaded with actionable detail. Brevity here reflects under-specification as much as discipline.

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?

The presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but for a tool with an undocumented optional filter and zero annotations, the definition leaves the agent guessing about both the parameter's semantics and the call's behavior. It is not sufficient to invoke confidently without trial and error.

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?

The single parameter 'nome_ou_tag' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all — not what a name filter matches, not whether tags are exact or substring, not whether omitting it lists everything. With one undocumented parameter, the description should compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb (Consultar) and resource (SLOs and configured SLI metrics), which is clear enough to distinguish it from every dashboard, alerting and query sibling in the list. The only defect is the stray '88.' ordinal prefix, which carries no meaning for an agent.

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 the alerting tools (grafana_listar_regras_alerta) or the report tools (grafana_gerar_relatorio_disponibilidade), which are the natural alternatives for SLO-adjacent questions. The agent must infer the context entirely from the tool name.

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