grafana_exportar_relatorio_csv_excel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none: it does not say whether a file is written to disk, where (arquivo_saida defaults to null), whether existing files are overwritten, or what permissions are needed. Only the output format choice is disclosed, which the schema's default already implies.

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, front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is efficient. But the leading '80.' enumeration artifact is noise, and the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but this is a file-writing tool with five undocumented parameters and no annotations. An agent cannot tell from this description how to shape linhas/cabecalhos or where the artifact ends up.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It clarifies the formato values (xlsx/csv) but says nothing about the required titulo, cabecalhos, or linhas shapes (array of arrays) or how arquivo_saida null behaves.

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 (exportar) and resource (dados analíticos tabulares) plus the two output formats (.xlsx / .csv), which cleanly distinguishes it from the PDF sibling and the render tools. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 statement of when to pick this over grafana_exportar_relatorio_pdf, grafana_renderizar_dashboard, or the data-acquisition tools that would produce the rows. The implicit workflow (gather data with another tool, then export here) is left entirely to inference.

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