grafana_testar_consultas_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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not say that live queries are dispatched to the underlying data sources (potential load, rate limits, timeouts), whether it stops on first failure or returns per-panel results, or what happens with template variables and time ranges. Only the bare 'executes queries' implication is conveyed.

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 front-loaded sentence that is efficient and unambiguous. The stray leading '20.' numbering is an artifact that adds no meaning but costs little.

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-value explanation is not required, and the single-parameter scope is simple. Still, with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, a description this short leaves the agent without the execution semantics (live query dispatch, failure behavior) needed to call it confidently.

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% and the single parameter uid_dashboard is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions the parameter, how to obtain the dashboard UID (e.g., from grafana_listar_dashboards), or what its format is, so the agent has no semantic help.

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 pair and resource: execute and test all queries of all panels of a dashboard. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as grafana_validar_dashboard or grafana_executar_consulta_painel, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to run this versus validating the dashboard, testing a single panel query, or testing the data source connection. No prerequisites (dashboard must exist, data source reachable) and no exclusions are stated.

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