grafana_listar_dashboards

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 and does not meet it. It never says the operation is read-only, never mentions pagination behavior despite 'limite' and 'pagina' parameters, gives no indication of how multiple filters combine, and says nothing about scale or performance of listing across folders.

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, which is appropriately terse. However it carries a stray list-marker artifact ('1.') and is so short that it omits information the tool clearly needs (pagination, filter combination semantics), making the brevity partly under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 optional parameters at 0% schema coverage and zero annotations, the description should explain paging defaults, whether pasta_ids accepts multiple folders, and how consulta vs tag filters interact. None of that is present, so an agent calling it is guessing on several knobs.

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%, so the description must compensate and only partially does: 'nome', 'tag' and 'pasta' loosely map to consulta, tag and pasta_ids (with 'nome' not matching the actual parameter name 'consulta'). The 'limite' and 'pagina' parameters receive no explanation at all, so half the contract, including default page size of 100, is undocumented.

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 pair (pesquisar e listar) and the exact resource (dashboards cadastrados no Grafana), plus the filter dimensions. An agent can tell this apart from grafana_obter_dashboard (single-item fetch) or grafana_listar_pastas without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of an alternative tool (e.g. grafana_pesquisar_recursos for broader resource search, or grafana_listar_pastas for folder discovery). Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose sentence.

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