grafana_obter_incidente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Obter' implies a read-only operation and the mention of timeline and status hints at the returned content, but there is no disclosure of permissions needed, behavior for nonexistent or closed incidents, or error conditions.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The leading '83.' is a numbering artifact that adds a bit of noise but does not impede comprehension.

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 explaining return values is unnecessary, and the read-only nature is implied. However, the description leaves the identifier format and the choice between this tool and its incident siblings unresolved, which are the remaining gaps for a correct 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?

The single parameter incidente_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate at all — it never clarifies whether the value is a numeric ID, a UUID, or a slug, nor where the agent should obtain it. With 0% coverage this is a real gap rather than a neutral baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('Obter') and resource ('incidente operacional') and enumerates what is returned (detalhes completos, linha do tempo, status). It is distinguishable from grafana_listar_incidentes, though the overlap with grafana_gerar_linha_tempo_incidente is not addressed.

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 tool versus alternatives such as grafana_listar_incidentes (for browsing) or grafana_gerar_linha_tempo_incidente (for a timeline view). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the word 'detalhes'.

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