grafana_diagnosticar_alertas

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

No annotations at all, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and only partially meets it. It discloses valuable scope beyond a simple read (it evaluates health and surfaces flapping triggers), implying a read-only analytical operation, but never states that it is non-destructive or what systems it touches (rules, notification policies, contact points, silences).

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 with no filler, and the diagnostic outcome (flapping triggers) is front-loaded. It loses a point for the stray leading "60." enumerator fragment, which is noise left over from a list.

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 needed here, and the description does convey the analytical goal. However, for a zero-parameter diagnostic over a broad domain, it does not indicate which alerting components are examined (rules, contact points, silences, on-call) or how the health verdict is scoped, leaving the agent to discover coverage from the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter-related gap exists.

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?

Specific verb pair ("Investigar e diagnosticar") plus a specific resource ("saúde do ecossistema de alertas") and a named finding ("triggers com flapping"). This distinguishes it from the sibling listing tools (grafana_listar_regras_alerta, grafana_listar_instancias_alerta) and the report tools, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 by the word "diagnosticar" – an agent can infer this is for investigating alerting problems rather than listing or editing rules. There is no statement of when to prefer this over grafana_listar_instancias_alerta or grafana_gerar_relatorio_alertas, and no preconditions.

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