grafana_testar_conexao

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the burden, and it does disclose the four things being checked, implying a read-only diagnostic. However it does not say whether the checks are mandatory or partial, whether latency is measured against a specific endpoint, or what happens on failure — details beyond what the (present) output schema covers.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, but the leading '100.' is an artifact that adds no meaning and mildly distracts. Otherwise appropriately sized for a no-argument diagnostic.

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?

With an output schema present for return values and no parameters, the description only needs to convey scope and it does so adequately. The remaining gap is usage routing against sibling test tools, which is minor given the narrow, obvious operation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. The sentence usefully enumerates the dimensions the parameterless call will cover.

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 ('Testar') and enumerates what is verified: connectivity, authentication, latency and Grafana compatibility. That is clearly distinct from query or dashboard tools, though it never distinguishes itself from sibling test tools such as grafana_testar_fonte_dados or grafana_verificar_compatibilidade_plugin.

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 call this tool, no prerequisites, and no exclusion of alternatives, despite several siblings in the same 'testing' family. The agent must infer from the name alone that this validates the Grafana instance rather than a data source.

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