grafana_obter_fonte_dados

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. It does add one genuine disclosure beyond the schema — that sensitive configuration is filtered out of the response — which is valuable, but it says nothing about required permissions or what happens when the UID/ID does not exist.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (non-sensitive config) is front-loaded. The leading "22." is a leaked list-ordinal artifact that adds noise but does not obscure meaning.

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 shape need not be described, and the tool is single-parameter and low complexity. Still, the undocumented parameter format and absent not-found/permission behavior leave gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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 parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies the parameter identifies the data source; it never explains that uid_ou_id accepts either a string UID or a numeric ID, nor the expected format.

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 states a specific verb ("Consultar") and resource ("fonte de dados específica") plus the scope of what is returned ("detalhes e configurações não-sensíveis"). That distinguishes it from the mutating siblings (criar/atualizar/excluir) and from the listing tool, but 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?

Usage is only implied: "específica" signals this is the per-item read counterpart to grafana_listar_fontes_dados, but the description never says when to pick it over testar_fonte_dados or diagnosticar_fontes_dados. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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