grafana_gerar_link_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a harmless link-construction operation but never states whether it validates the dashboard/panel exists, whether generated links persist or expire, or how time range and variables affect the URL. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 padding, though the leading '10.' enumerator is an artifact that adds nothing and should be trimmed.

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 with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no guidance on link variables or time-range semantics, an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call from this definition alone.

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 all four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: uid, id_painel, variaveis and intervalo_tempo are never explained. Only the passing mention of 'painéis específicos' loosely hints at id_painel; formats for variaveis (a string map) and intervalo_tempo are 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?

Names a concrete action (generating navigable links/URLs) and the target resources (dashboards and specific panels), which lets an agent distinguish it from the dashboard-CRUD siblings. It does not differentiate from the nearby grafana_gerar_link_explore, and the stray '10.' prefix is noise, but the verb+resource pairing is clear.

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 indication of when to use this versus grafana_gerar_link_explore or the render/report tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the dashboard UID must exist, whether links are time-scoped). Usage is only inferable 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.