grafana_renderizar_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say whether the snapshot is persisted server-side, what permissions are required, whether rendering is synchronous, or any size/timeout constraints. The leading "78." is also unexplained noise rather than disclosed behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with little waste beyond the opaque "78." prefix. However, compressing two distinct output modes (image render vs static snapshot) into one terse clause creates ambiguity rather than economy.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that gap is excused, but for a tool with 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an ambiguous snapshot-vs-image mode, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine how to invoke it correctly without guessing parameter semantics.

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% across 5 parameters (de, ate, altura, largura, dashboard_uid), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. "Imagem" loosely implies image dimensions and time-range inputs exist, but there is no syntax, format, default, or required-parameter guidance to compensate for the empty 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ("Renderizar visão completa do dashboard em imagem ou gerar snapshot estático"), so an agent can tell it produces a dashboard image or snapshot. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like grafana_renderizar_painel (panel-level render) or grafana_gerenciar_snapshots, leaving the scope boundary implicit.

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: the phrase "em imagem ou gerar snapshot estático" hints at two output modes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over grafana_renderizar_painel, grafana_gerenciar_snapshots, or the PDF export tools. No preconditions 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.