grafana_planejar_dashboard

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 discloses the critical non-persistence trait ('sem salvar'), but does not explain whether the prompt is interpreted by an LLM, whether any temporary state or draft is created, or what permissions are required.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the leading '12.' is extraneous structure. It communicates the core operation efficiently.

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. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description remains thin for a tool surrounded by many similar dashboard-management siblings; it conveys the no-save constraint but little else about 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'prompt' parameter. The description does not explain what the prompt should contain, whether it is natural language or structured, or any constraints, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Planejar') and lists the resources involved (estrutura, painéis, consultas, métricas), plus the key constraint 'sem salvar'. This distinguishes it from saving siblings like criar_dashboard or atualizar_dashboard, though no sibling is named explicitly and the leading '12.' is noise.

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?

'Sem salvar' implies a planning/drafting use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or comparison to alternatives such as gerar_dashboard_por_prompt, criar_dashboard, or validar_dashboard. Usage is only implied.

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