grafana_listar_pastas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or what happens with the paging parameters. 'Listar' implies a safe read, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of padding, but the stray '61.' numbering prefix is noise and the sentence is arguably too terse for what it needs to convey.

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 explained, but with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation the definition leaves pagination, ordering, and result size entirely to guesswork.

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% and the description never mentions 'limite' or 'pagina'. The only hint comes from the schema's own Portuguese titles and defaults, meaning the description adds nothing about pagination semantics or the maximum page size.

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+resource ('Listar todas as pastas'), which cleanly separates it from the mutation siblings in the pasta group (criar/atualizar/excluir_pasta). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or note scope relative to grafana_listar_dashboards, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance, no prerequisite, and no pointer to an alternative tool. The listing intent is only implied by the verb, leaving the agent to infer everything about context.

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