grafana_listar_incidentes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never states that this is a read-only listing, what the default page size behaviour is, whether results are paginated, or what permissions/instance configuration the Incident source requires. The only behavioral hint is that two possible sources exist, which is itself unexplained.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient, but the leading '81.' is a stray numbering artifact that carries no meaning for an agent. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 for a filtered list tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain the status filter and the source ambiguity. Neither is covered, leaving real gaps before invocation.

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 both 'limit' and 'status' are undocumented in structured form, and the description compensates for neither — it does not say what status values are accepted or that limit defaults to 50. The agent learns nothing about filtering from the prose.

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 verb 'Listar' plus resource 'incidentes' does state the operation, but the qualifier 'operacionais via Grafana Incident ou anotações de incidentes' leaves the data source ambiguous — the agent cannot tell whether this returns Incident objects or annotation-derived records. It also gives no signal that separates it from siblings like grafana_gerar_relatorio_incidentes or grafana_obter_incidente.

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 versus the incident-report, incident-detail, or alert-listing siblings. The 'ou' construction hints at two backends but gives no condition for choosing between them, so an agent must guess which one applies.

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