grafana_gerar_relatorio_alertas

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, yet it says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, whether it persists a file, what format the result arrives in, or how expensive/slow report generation is. Only the word 'relatório' hints at artifact generation.

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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The leading '74.' enumeration prefix is noise that adds nothing and slightly degrades an otherwise tight description.

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 explained, but for a report-generation tool with three undocumented parameters and zero annotations, the description leaves too much unspecified — acceptable formats, what 'estado' filters, and whether output is a file or inline data.

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% and the description explains none of the three parameters. 'estado' in particular is undefined (alert state? enabled/silenced?), and 'formato'/'periodo' must be guessed from their defaults rather than documented semantics.

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 concrete verb+resource: generate a report of fired alerts, activation history, and frequency. This distinguishes it reasonably from sibling report tools (disponibilidade, desempenho, incidentes) by naming the subject matter, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Offers no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, even though siblings like grafana_diagnosticar_alertas, grafana_listar_regras_alerta, and the other relatório tools overlap conceptually. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.

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