grafana_gerar_relatorio_executivo

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether this is read-only or produces/stores an artifact, how expensive the aggregation is (it touches datasources, dashboards and alerts), what auth or timeouts apply, or how formats are handled.

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?

Front-loaded verb and resource in one compact sentence, but the leading "71." is a leftover numbering artifact that is pure noise, and the sentence is thin relative to what the tool does.

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?

For a multi-source aggregation tool with zero annotation coverage, four undocumented params and non-trivial cost/latency implications, the single-sentence description leaves the agent underspecified. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but not inputs or operational behavior.

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% for four parameters (titulo, formato, periodo, incluir_graficos) and the description adds nothing about them. In particular the accepted values for "formato" and the period syntax for "periodo" are undocumented anywhere, so the agent cannot call it reliably without guessing.

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 ("Gerar") and a specific artifact ("relatório executivo") plus the four domains it consolidates: instance health, datasources, dashboards and alerts. That separates it reasonably from the narrower report siblings (disponibilidade, desempenho, alertas, incidentes, capacidade), though the distinction is implied by scope only.

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 guidance on when to choose this consolidated report over the five specialized report tools or the export tools (grafana_exportar_relatorio_pdf/csv_excel). The agent must infer from the word "consolidando" that this is the broad executive roll-up.

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