grafana_verificar_compatibilidade_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, permissions required, whether checks are read-only, or what compatibility dimensions (version, Grafana release, dependencies) are evaluated. It only restates that it 'verifies' something.

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 sentence is short and to the point, but the leading '29.' numbering artifact is noise that precedes and distracts from the substantive content, weakening front-loading.

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 explained. Still, for a tool whose entire value is the compatibility verdict, the description omits what is compared or any caveat, leaving an agent with only the bare minimum to call it correctly.

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 plugin_id is undocumented in the schema. The description only refers vaguely to 'um plugin específico' and does not clarify whether plugin_id is an ID, slug, or signature — a partial gap, but the single trivial parameter keeps this from being worse.

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 (verificar) and resource (metadados e requisitos de compatibilidade de um plugin), which distinguishes it from the sibling grafana_listar_plugins that only enumerates plugins. However, it opens with a stray list artifact ('29.') that adds no meaning.

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 indication of when to prefer this tool over grafana_listar_plugins, nor any prerequisite or precondition (e.g., whether the plugin must already be installed). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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