grafana_gerar_relatorio_capacidade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether the tool reads existing data or writes/renders a report, whether it requires credentials or a rendering service, generation latency, or any limits. Only the bare topic is disclosed.

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?

It is short and front-loads the resource name, but the leading sequence number '76.' is wasted characters and the parenthetical English gloss partly duplicates the Portuguese text. There is no structural hierarchy beyond a single clause.

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, and all three parameters are optional with sensible defaults, lowering the burden. Still, for a report-generating tool with no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about output size/format implications and when the tool is the right choice.

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 three parameters (formato, periodo, recursos), and the description compensates for none of it — it never mentions accepted formats, the period syntax, or what 'recursos' should contain. The topic noun hints that capacity resources are involved, but no actionable parameter meaning is added.

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 (Gerar) and a specific artifact (relatório de capacidade e planejamento de crescimento / Capacity Planning), which an agent can distinguish from the availability, performance, alert, and incident report siblings. It does not, however, explicitly state how it differs from those siblings, and the leading '76.' prefix adds noise rather than clarity.

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 use this tool versus the other report generators (executivo, disponibilidade, desempenho, alertas, incidentes) or versus grafana_analisar_tendencias_metricas, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the topic word 'capacidade'.

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