grafana_listar_equipes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Listar' implies a read, but nothing about pagination, result limits, whether teams span organizations, or authentication requirements is disclosed. The output schema covers return shape, but operational traits are absent.

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?

The sentence is short and front-loaded, but the leading artifact '94.' is noise and the parenthetical '(teams)' is redundant with the tool name. It is efficient but not information-dense.

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 simple list tool with an output schema, the missing pieces are the meaning of 'query' and any routing hint against grafana_gerenciar_equipes. With no annotations to fall back on, the description leaves real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

There is one optional parameter, 'query', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether it is a name filter, a free-text search, or an expression syntax.

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 restates the tool name in prose: 'listar equipes' for grafana_listar_equipes, plus a parenthetical translation and 'configuradas no Grafana'. It gives no scope detail that distinguishes it from grafana_gerenciar_equipes, which also deals with teams.

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 guidance on when to call this versus grafana_gerenciar_equipes or other resource-listing siblings. Nothing indicates prerequisites, permissions, or what the optional query is for.

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