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

No annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden for a mutating tool. It says 'nativo do Zabbix' and 'Scheduled Reports' but does not disclose required permissions/roles, how an existing schedule is matched for update (by nome?), whether an update overwrites or merges, or that email_destinatario triggers delivery. Only the bare fact that it writes report-schedule config 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?

A single short sentence with no filler prose, but the leading '50.' is a numbering artifact that adds noise and the useful content is not front-loaded with any actionable detail.

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 needn't be explained, but for a create-or-update mutation with zero annotation coverage and zero schema documentation, the description leaves the agent unable to call it confidently — the identity/merge semantics and accepted period formats are unknown.

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% on three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions 'nome' as the identifying/lookup key, never enumerates valid values for 'periodo' (which defaults to 'semanal' but has no enum), and never explains that 'email_destinatario' is nullable or what null means for delivery. At most, 'agendamento' weakly implies periodo is the recurrence.

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 (criar ou atualizar) and a specific resource (agendamento de relatório nativo do Zabbix / Scheduled Reports). An agent can tell this is about scheduling recurring reports, distinct from the zabbix_gerar_relatorio_* siblings that produce a report on demand, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to schedule versus when to generate a report immediately via the many zabbix_gerar_relatorio_* / zabbix_exportar_relatorio_* tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of what makes an agent choose the update path rather than the create path.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it does not say whether this actively probes the network (port scanning implications), whether it touches Zabbix server state, what credentials or permissions are needed, or how long it may take. The word 'evidências de identificação' hints at probing but the behavior is never made explicit.

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 short, but the leading '2.' is a copy-paste artifact that signals an incomplete, out-of-context definition rather than a front-loaded one. Brevity here reflects under-specification 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a two-parameter network-analysis tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema coverage, a single orphaned sentence is not enough for an agent to invoke it correctly or safely.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'portas permitidas' loosely maps to the optional `portas` array but never clarifies whether it is a list to scan, a whitelist, or a filter, nor what the default (null) does, and the required `ip` field's accepted formats (bare IP vs CIDR vs hostname) go unstated.

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 fragment names a verb ('Analisar') and enumerates what gets examined (IP, DNS, allowed ports, identification evidence), which is more than the tool name alone conveys. But it is pasted from a numbered doc list (leading '2.') and never states what an 'analysis' actually produces or how it differs from siblings like zabbix_identificar_servicos or zabbix_descobrir_rede.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the very similar discovery/identification siblings that a model could easily confuse it with. The agent must guess at the boundary between this and zabbix_descobrir_rede, zabbix_identificar_sistema_operacional, and zabbix_identificar_servicos.

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

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 implies a read/analysis operation but never states that it is read-only, what data window it scans by default, whether it requires any permissions, or that it only produces suggestions rather than applying changes.

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 efficient sentence, but it is prefixed with a stray ordinal ('59.') that looks like a list-artifact rather than tool documentation and adds no meaning. Otherwise front-loaded with the core action.

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 needn't be explained. However, for a tool whose only input is a tunable time window, the description should at least tie the analysis to periodo_dias and note it is analysis-only; those gaps leave it minimally adequate.

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 periodo_dias (default 7) is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no explanation of what the lookback window controls or how changing it affects the flapping analysis.

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+resource: identifying suspicious recurring-alert (flapping) patterns and suggesting adjustments. This is distinguishable from neighbors like zabbix_recomendar_ajustes_alertas and zabbix_detectar_anomalias, though it doesn't explicitly name the boundary with those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus zabbix_recomendar_ajustes_alertas, zabbix_detectar_anomalias, or zabbix_listar_problemas. The flapping focus implies a use case but there are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'mantendo os existentes' clarifies the operation is additive (merge) rather than a replace — but says nothing about permissions/auth, whether incompatible templates cause a partial or atomic failure, or whether linked items are immediately activated.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no padding; the additive constraint sits immediately after the action. The only defect is the stray '18.' ordinal prefix, which is document-navigation noise that leaks into the tool contract.

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. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description leaves out what 'compatíveis' actually checks, whether the call fails wholesale on an incompatible template, and what ID format the parameters take — gaps that matter for 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% and neither parameter is documented: the description does not clarify that 'hostid' expects a Zabbix host ID (vs. host name) or that 'templates_ids' is an array of template IDs, nor whether an empty array is legal. Given that 'compatíveis' hints at a validation step, guidance on ID format was needed here and is absent.

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 and resource (associate templates to a host) and adds the key qualifier 'compatíveis', which is meaningful. The verb 'associar' naturally separates it from sibling zabbix_desassociar_templates_host, but the description never names that sibling or zabbix_recomendar_templates, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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: an agent can infer this is the step after recommending templates, and that it should be used instead of desassociar when adding. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (does the host need to exist? must templates be pre-validated?), and no listed exclusion against siblings like zabbix_atualizar_host.

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

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 does not meet it. It never discloses that this is a mutation, whether disabling a host suppresses its data collection, triggers and alerts, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions it needs.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the leading "16." is leftover list numbering that adds no meaning and slightly obscures the sentence. The brevity here is under-specification rather than efficient wording.

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, but for a two-parameter mutation with zero schema coverage the description is far too thin. The status value encoding and the side effects on monitoring are exactly what is missing and what an agent needs before calling.

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 coverage is 0% for both parameters, and the description supplies nothing: hostid is never explained and the meaning of the required integer 'status' (which values mean enabled vs disabled) is completely absent. An agent must guess the encoding for the one parameter that determines the outcome.

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 states a recognizable verb and resource ("Alterar o status de monitoramento de um host"), so the general intent is clear. However, it never says which direction the change goes (enable/disable) or what the two states are, and it does not distinguish this from sibling zabbix_atualizar_host, which can plausibly also change host status.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no named alternatives. With a sibling like zabbix_atualizar_host in the list, an agent has no stated reason to pick this tool over that one for a status change.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutation tool, and it delivers almost nothing: no statement of whether unspecified fields are preserved (partial vs. full update), no permission/auth requirements, no side effects, no reversibility. The phrase "propriedades permitidas" is the only hint that some fields are restricted, and it is never expanded.

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 front-loaded, but the leading "14." is leftover list numbering that carries no meaning for an agent and consumes part of an already minimal payload. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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, but for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions the definition is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent what a valid update looks like or how it differs from the many neighboring host-mutation tools.

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 4 parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for `hostid`, `status`, `descricao`, or `nome_visivel`. It does not compensate for the coverage gap in any way, leaving the agent to infer semantics from bare property titles.

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 verb ("Atualizar") and a resource ("host"), so the basic action is identifiable, but "propriedades permitidas" never names which properties are updateable and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like zabbix_ativar_desativar_host, zabbix_gerenciar_interfaces_host, or zabbix_atualizar_inventario.

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 when-to-use guidance at all, and no mention of alternatives. This is especially problematic because the schema exposes a `status` field that overlaps with the dedicated zabbix_ativar_desativar_host sibling, leaving the agent to guess which tool owns that operation.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool, and it delivers very little. The phrase 'campos permitidos' hints that only a whitelist of inventory fields is writable, but it never says which restrictions apply, whether inventory mode must be enabled beforehand, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 with the action, scope, and examples; nothing is wasted. The stray '72.' numbering artifact at the start is noise that should be stripped, but it does not obscure the intent.

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?

For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no schema descriptions, and a nested open-ended object, the description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but permission requirements, the inventory-mode interaction, and allowed-field validation are all left to guesswork.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the three parameters, but it only addresses the nested campos_inventario via examples. hostid is obvious, yet modo_inventario (default 1, a mode switch controlling manual vs automatic inventory) is completely unexplained, which is a meaningful semantic gap for an agent filling the call.

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 and resource ('Atualizar campos de inventário ... de um host') and gives example fields (os, location, tag, notes), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling zabbix_atualizar_host (which edits host properties) or from the read-only zabbix_consultar_inventario, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this over zabbix_atualizar_host, zabbix_consultar_inventario, or zabbix_gerar_relatorio_inventario. The only usage signal is the implied 'update inventory fields', with no prerequisites, preconditions, or exclusions stated.

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

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 largely drops it. It does not say this is a mutation, that unspecified fields are left unchanged, that changing 'delay' alters polling cadence, or that status=disabled stops data collection — all material side effects for an agent performing an update.

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 short and front-loaded, but the leading "24." is dead weight from a numbered list that leaked into the description, and the single sentence is too sparse to earn its place as the only guidance for a 4-parameter mutation.

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, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description should carry side-effect and field semantics. It delivers neither, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently beyond guessing.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: no mention of itemid being required, of status encoding (enabled/disabled integer values), or of the accepted delay format (e.g. '60s'). "Configurações permitidas" gestures at the optional fields without mapping to any of them.

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 verb and resource ("Atualizar ... um item") are identifiable and distinguishable from zabbix_criar_item / zabbix_consultar_item. However, "configurações permitidas" is vague — it never says which settings are updatable (name, delay, status), so the agent cannot confirm scope from the description alone. The leading "24." is unexplained noise rather than 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 statement of when to use this tool versus zabbix_criar_item, zabbix_consultar_item, or zabbix_atualizar_host, and no preconditions (item must exist, whether changes are partial or full). The only implicit signal is the word "Atualizar".

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

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 does not state that this is a mutating operation, whether unspecified fields are left untouched (partial vs full update), what permissions are required, or what happens with an invalid maintenanceid. The presence of an output schema covers the return side, but mutation semantics are undisclosed.

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 but wastes its opening on a list-style number ("68.") and carries almost no information beyond the tool name. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, zero schema description coverage, and an ambiguous timestamp parameter, the description provides nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Only the existence of an output schema offsets any of the burden.

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 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — active_till, description, and maintenanceid are never mentioned or explained. In particular, the format of active_till (Unix timestamp?) is left entirely ambiguous.

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 verb+resource pair "Alterar uma janela de manutenção" does identify an update operation on a maintenance window, which distinguishes it from zabbix_criar_manutencao and zabbix_listar_manutencoes by name alone. However the qualifier "autorizada" is unexplained, the stray "68." prefix is noise, and the description says nothing about what aspects of the window are altered.

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 use this tool versus zabbix_criar_manutencao, zabbix_consultar_* or the sibling listing tool. The agent must infer that an existing maintenanceid is a precondition and that creation is handled elsewhere.

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

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 signals a mutation ('Atualizar') but does not disclose partial-update semantics, what happens to omitted fields, permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects on service rules.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary elaboration. The only unnecessary element is the leading '64.' artifact, but the sentence itself is compact and readable.

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. However, for a no-annotation mutation tool with 3 undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse: it omits behavioral details, parameter meaning, and usage context needed to invoke 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% for all three parameters. The description mentions 'propriedades e regras' generically but does not explain what 'name' or 'algorithm' mean in Zabbix services, nor does it mention the required 'serviceid'. It fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 gives a clear verb ('Atualizar') and resource ('serviço') plus a scope ('propriedades e regras'). It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like criar_servico and consultar_servico, though it does not name them. The leading '64.' is noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus zabbix_criar_servico, zabbix_consultar_servico, or other update alternatives. It also omits prerequisites such as requiring an existing serviceid. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Atualizar'.

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

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 identifies the operation as an update but says nothing about permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens to fields that are omitted.

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 sentence, so it is concise, but it is weakened by the stray "78." prefix and does not front-load required-input or mutation details.

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. For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, however, the description is missing too much: it does not identify the required templateid or clarify the update scope.

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 description does not mention any of the three parameters. It does not state that templateid is required or explain the name and description fields, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Atualizar ... template"), so an agent can tell this is a template update operation. However, "propriedades e objetos" is vague and overbroad compared with the actual schema, which only exposes name and description, and the numbering prefix 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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of zabbix_criar_template, zabbix_consultar_template, zabbix_gerenciar_grupos_templates, or zabbix_atualizar_host. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The text only states 'properties' but provides no behavioral context regarding success/failure, required authentication levels, or transactional guarantees for the update operation.

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 definition is extremely concise, delivering the core intent in a single, brief statement. There is no unnecessary padding.

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?

Given the complexity of modifying system properties like triggers, the description is dangerously incomplete. It lacks the necessary high-level context required for an agent to safely and intelligently deploy this tool.

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%, yet the description fails to add any semantic meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'status', 'comments', or 'priority' means in the Zabbix context (e.g., numerical ranges, allowed status values) beyond what is provided in the schema types.

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 purpose is clearly stated: 'Atualizar propriedades suportadas de uma trigger.' This specifies the action (update) and the resource (trigger properties). It is specific enough, though it could be slightly improved by naming the specific properties mentioned in the schema.

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 are no usage guidelines provided. The description does not explain when this tool should be used versus other Zabbix tools like zabbix_consultar_trigger or zabbix_criar_trigger, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema and context.

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

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 never states that this is a read-only analysis, whether it mutates anything, how large a scan it performs, or what permissions it needs. 'Possíveis lacunas' is left undefined, so an agent cannot predict what the audit actually evaluates.

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 short sentence, which is appropriately sized for a zero-param tool. However, the leading '80.' is a numbering artifact with no semantic value, and 'possíveis lacunas' is vague filler that dilutes the otherwise concrete list of audit targets.

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 detail is not required. Still, for a zero-param audit tool the description omits the scope of the audit (whole environment, group, or template) and what a 'gap' means, which the agent needs to interpret results 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level guidance is needed or missing.

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 ('Auditar') and three concrete audit targets: hosts without adequate templates, empty associations, and gaps. An agent can tell this is a coverage/consistency audit rather than a mutation or listing tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like zabbix_recomendar_templates or zabbix_listar_hosts, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus zabbix_recomendar_templates (which suggests fixes) or zabbix_listar_hosts (which enumerates). No prerequisites, no scope qualifiers (all hosts? a group? a template?), and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'auditar'.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden for a write operation. It does disclose that validation is per-item and that a results report is produced, but it never says what happens when some devices fail, whether successes persist on partial failure, or what the approval flow is.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than tight, and the leading ordinal '9.' is leftover artifact noise that should not be in a tool description.

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 covers return values, but for a batch mutation gated by an approval token with zero parameter documentation and no annotations, the description leaves out what an agent needs: the input item shape, what approval buys, and partial-failure 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%, so the description must compensate and does not: 'previsoes' (required) is left entirely opaque and 'token_aprovacao' is never mentioned. Only the word 'aprovados' loosely gestures at the approval token.

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 and resource in Portuguese: batch-register multiple approved devices, with individual validation and a results report. That distinguishes it from the single-host sibling zabbix_criar_host, though the stray leading '9.' is unexplained 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?

No guidance on when to use batch registration rather than zabbix_criar_host, zabbix_previsualizar_cadastro or zabbix_executar_fluxo_aprovado, and no prerequisites stated. The adjective 'aprovados' hints at a prior approval step but neither explains it nor names the tool that performs it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: whether the comparison is read-only, what a match/mismatch means, or what happens on unexpected IP formats. The existence of an output schema partially covers return values, but the operational semantics remain undisclosed.

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 short, but that brevity comes from being under-specified rather than efficient. The leading '6.' signals an orphaned workflow step with no self-contained framing, and no information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool in a 90-plus sibling environment that takes a required array parameter, the description should at minimum identify the input and the comparison basis. The output schema helps with return values, but the definition remains insufficient to call the tool 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 ips_descobertos is only obliquely implied by the word 'descoberta'. The description never states that the input is the array of discovered IPs, nor the expected format (bare IPs vs. CIDR), leaving the agent to reconcile schema and text alone.

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 fragment 'Comparar a descoberta com o inventário atual' does state a verb (compare) and the two operands (discovery results vs. current inventory), so an agent can grasp the general idea. But it reads as a leftover numbered step from a workflow, with no statement of what the comparison produces or how it differs from siblings like zabbix_verificar_descoberta or zabbix_deduplicar_dispositivos.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing guidance. Given the dense cluster of discovery/cadastro siblings (verificar_descoberta, deduplicar_dispositivos, previsualizar_cadastro), the agent is left to guess when this comparison step applies.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say this is a read-only operation, doesn't disclose required permissions, doesn't explain what 'equivalent' means operationally (same length? same time of day?), and doesn't mention limits on item types that have history data. Only the bare intent 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 sentence, no padding, so it is concise. But the '94.' numbering is meaningless artifact, and the brevity comes from under-specification 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a 5-parameter comparison tool with no annotations, the description leaves the time-unit ambiguity and the definition of equivalent periods unaddressed — the two things an agent most needs 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% across 5 required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that itemid identifies the metric, nor — critically — whether periodo_1_inicio/fim and periodo_2_inicio/fim are epoch seconds, timestamps, or relative offsets. The phrase 'períodos equivalentes' hints at a constraint on the two ranges but leaves it undefined.

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 does state a specific verb and resource: comparing a metric's behavior across two equivalent periods. However, the leading '94.' is noise, and nothing distinguishes this from timeline-oriented siblings such as zabbix_consultar_historico, zabbix_consultar_tendencias, or zabbix_ultimos_valores, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.

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 choose this tool over the history or trend tools, nor any prerequisite such as needing an itemid that already supports collection. The only implied usage is 'two equivalent periods', which is a scenario, not a rule for selecting the tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers none of it: nothing about auth/permissions required, whether the default event source changes results, pagination, or volume of actions returned. The only behavioral hint is the implicit read-only nature of "Listar".

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The leading "52." is numbering noise that adds nothing but is not seriously disruptive.

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, but for a tool with an undocumented parameter, no annotations, and a closely related mutation sibling, the description omits essentials: parameter meaning, scope of "eventos", and routing guidance.

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 single parameter eventsource has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. An agent has no way to know what integer values mean (trigger vs. discovery vs. autoregistration actions) or why the default is 0, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Listar ações configuradas para eventos"), which is enough to understand it retrieves configured actions scoped to event sources. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling zabbix_gerenciar_acoes, which covers the mutation side of the same resource.

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 call this versus zabbix_gerenciar_acoes or zabbix_consultar_regras_escalonamento. The read-only listing intent is only implied by the verb "Listar"; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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

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 states nothing about read-only nature, whether results are paginated/truncated by 'limite', what time range is covered by default, or what permissions are needed — all critical for an audit log query.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb — but it opens with a meaningless list index '89.' and redundantly parenthesizes the English term. Otherwise no waste, yet not much substance either.

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 needn't be described, but with zero annotations, an undocumented parameter, and no distinction from the MCP-audit sibling, the definition leaves an agent guessing about scope, filtering, and result limits.

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 'limite' is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no hint that 'limite' caps the number of returned audit records, what the default of 50 means, or whether other filters (time, user, action) exist.

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 and resource: querying Zabbix's native audit log records. The word 'nativos' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling zabbix_consultar_auditoria_mcp, but that contrast is never made explicit, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the nearly identical zabbix_consultar_auditoria_mcp sibling, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the term 'audit log'.

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

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 largely fails. 'Consultar' implies a read, but nothing is said about retention window, where the history is stored, whether it covers the current session only, or whether entries can be cleared. With no annotation coverage these gaps matter.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It would score higher without the leading '99.' enumeration artifact, which wastes attention and suggests the description is a copied list item.

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 shape is covered, but the two undocumented parameters and the total absence of behavioral context (retention, scope, storage) leave an agent under-informed for anything beyond a default no-argument call.

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?

Two parameters (limite, apenas_erros) with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. An agent must guess that limite bounds result count and that apenas_erros filters to failed calls; neither semantic is stated anywhere.

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 and resource: consult the local history of MCP tool calls and commands. The qualifier 'local' usefully distinguishes it from the Zabbix-side audit sibling zabbix_consultar_auditoria, though that sibling is never named explicitly. The '99.' numeric prefix is noise that adds nothing.

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: an agent can infer it should call this to see what MCP tools were invoked previously. There is no explicit 'use when' framing and no instruction about how it differs in practice from zabbix_consultar_auditoria, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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

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: only "consultar" implies read-only. It says nothing about permissions, whether a missing/invalid hostid silently returns everything, output volume, or pagination 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 short sentence, which is efficient, but it opens with an unexplained ordering artifact ("83.") and spends its short length on wording that adds no discriminating information.

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 documentation is not required. However, for a query tool in a crowded discovery namespace, the definition still leaves the agent unsure of scope and alternative selection.

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?

There is one optional parameter (hostid) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, yet it never mentions hostid, its optionality, or what omitting it returns (all hosts? all rules?). A user cannot tell the scope of the call from the description.

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 verb ("Consultar") and resource ("regras LLD / protótipos") are identifiable, but the phrase does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as zabbix_listar_regras_descoberta, zabbix_gerenciar_regras_descoberta and zabbix_verificar_descoberta. The trailing "e protótipos" is left unexplained (queried together? separately?).

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 use this versus the many other discovery-related siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must guess whether this is a list-all, a detail lookup, or a prototype inspection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose that this is a read-only lookup, what 'disponibilidade' comprises (triggers, interface status, agents availability), or whether a nonexistent hostid errors or returns empty. Only the existence of an output schema partially covers the return shape.

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 short and front-loaded, but the leading index number '20.' is meaningless to an agent and the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being earned 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?

An output schema covers return values, but for a tool whose whole purpose is interpreting host availability, the description never defines what is measured or how to interpret it, and leaves the required hostid semantics undocumented. This is insufficient for 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 parameter 'hostid', and the description adds nothing about what it expects (Zabbix internal host ID vs visible name) or its format. With one undocumented parameter, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb ('consultar') and a resource ('disponibilidade e o estado observável do host'), which is more than a tautology. However, the leading '20.' is unexplained noise, and there is no differentiation from close siblings such as zabbix_consultar_host, zabbix_listar_problemas, or zabbix_gerar_relatorio_disponibilidade, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With siblings like zabbix_consultar_host and zabbix_verificar_coleta overlapping conceptually, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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

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. 'Recuperar' implies a read, but the description says nothing about authentication requirements, whether any calls to the Zabbix API are expensive, or how the returned state should be interpreted. With zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 efficient sentence, but the leading '90.' is unexplained ordinal noise that consumes attention without adding meaning. The actual content is front-loaded and otherwise waste-free.

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 details need not be explained. For a zero-parameter status tool the description is mostly sufficient, but 'estado geral do sistema' remains vague about what is actually reported, and nothing clarifies how this differs from the broader environment-diagnostic sibling.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty properties object is self-explanatory.

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 gives a specific verb ('Recuperar') plus concrete resources: Zabbix version, HA nodes, queue, and general system state. An agent can tell this is a health/status snapshot tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as zabbix_diagnosticar_ambiente or zabbix_validar_conexao.

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 versus the many diagnostic and reporting siblings, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name that this is a first-stop health check.

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

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 only implies a read operation and discloses nothing about permissions, pagination, default limits, return shape, or time-range semantics. For a query tool with zero structured behavioral coverage this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with the key information front-loaded, which is efficient. But the leading ordinal "33." is noise and the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 5-parameter, annotation-free tool, the description leaves an agent unable to know timestamp format, severity scale, default-limit behavior, or how it differs from the many sibling event/problem tools.

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 every parameter is bare (hostid, limite, tempo_de, tempo_ate, severidade). The description hints at host, period, and severity but never explains that tempo_de/tempo_ate are integers (unix timestamps?), what severity integer values mean, or what "limite" controls; it also mentions "objeto" which is not a parameter.

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+resource ("Consultar eventos") and lists the filter dimensions, so an agent can tell it is a read/query tool for Zabbix events. However, it does not distinguish this from closely related siblings such as zabbix_listar_problemas or zabbix_consultar_problema, and the listed filter "objeto" has no matching parameter.

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 use this tool versus zabbix_listar_problemas, zabbix_consultar_problema, or zabbix_obter_historico_problema, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Consultar' implies a read, but nothing about permissions required (this is a privileged user-management topic), scope of returned roles, or whether it lists all roles vs. a specific user's.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with a verb, but the leading '88.' is metadata noise that adds no meaning and slightly obscures the actual purpose.

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 and the tool is parameterless, which lowers the bar considerably. However, the description does not clarify scope (all roles? per-user permissions?) or distinguish it from the neighboring user/audit query tools, leaving a small gap.

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 the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 (Consultar) and resource (funções e papéis de usuário / permissões), so the agent knows this returns role and permission data rather than users themselves. It is not explicitly contrasted with the sibling zabbix_consultar_usuarios, but the resource distinction is discernible.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus zabbix_consultar_usuarios or zabbix_consultar_auditoria, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent gets a topic but no routing logic.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether the read is safe, not how retention windows or history-vs-trends storage affect results, not what the default 50-record limit implies, and not what happens when tempo_de/tempo_ate are omitted. It never even states this is a read-only retrieval against a specific item.

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, but shortness here is under-specification rather than concision. The leading ordinal '25.' is noise that leaks from a list and adds no meaning for an agent.

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 fairly excused, but for a five-parameter time-series query tool with zero schema documentation the description leaves the agent guessing on units, defaults and history types. It is far short of what is needed to invoke the tool correctly on the first attempt.

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 five parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. It does not explain that itemid is the required Zabbix item identifier, that limite caps returned rows, that tempo_de/tempo_ate are time bounds (seconds vs. timestamp is unknown), or what values historico_tipo accepts — a critical gap for a numeric enum-typed field.

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 verb and resource (consult historical data of items), which is more than a tautology, but it carries a stray enumeration prefix ('25.') and does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings such as zabbix_ultimos_valores, zabbix_consultar_tendencias or zabbix_consultar_item. An agent cannot tell from the text which of these retrieves time-series history versus current values versus trend aggregates.

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 use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to pick. The only implied guidance is the word 'histórico', which the agent must infer against several sibling tools that also return time-related metric data.

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

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. 'Consultar' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain permissions, pagination, what 'quando disponíveis' means for results, or any other operational 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler beyond the irrelevant '53.' prefix. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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, but the input side is completely undocumented and there is no usage context or sibling differentiation. For a three-parameter tool with no annotations, this is not enough to call it reliably.

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?

All three parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description does not mention any of them. It gives no meaning for tempo_de, tempo_ate, or apenas_falhas beyond what their bare names imply, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the resource ('notificações') and that results are consulted when available, but it does not clarify that this is historical notification data or distinguish it from siblings like zabbix_listar_alertas or zabbix_listar_canais_notificacao. The leading '53.' adds no semantic value. Purpose is inferable but vague.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer its role among many notification- and alert-related siblings from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and "consultar" only weakly signals a read-only operation. It says nothing about required permissions, what happens when a host is not found, whether both or either identifier is needed, or how heavy the response is for a "complete details" call.

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 short sentence with the resource front and center, but the leading "12." is an artifact of a list and adds nothing, and the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 presence of an output schema covers return values, but for a detail-fetch tool with zero annotation coverage and two undocumented, mutually optional identifiers, the description leaves critical calling decisions unresolved. It also lacks any hint of the host-detail categories the result contains.

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 coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters, yet the two parameters (nome, hostid) are both optional, creating a real either/or ambiguity the agent cannot resolve from either source. Nothing indicates whether both can be supplied, which takes precedence, or what a null pair does.

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?

"Consultar detalhes completos de um host" states a specific verb and resource with a scope hint ("completos"), so the purpose is graspable. But it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as zabbix_consultar_disponibilidade_host, zabbix_consultar_inventario, or zabbix_listar_hosts, so the agent must guess which detail-returning host tool applies.

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?

The word "detalhes completos" faintly implies "use this for full host info rather than the listing", but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite statement. No sibling is named as an alternative, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet only 'consultar' hints at read-only behavior. It says nothing about pagination semantics, default result volume, whether an absent hostid means all hosts, or what happens when inventory fields are unset.

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 '71.' list-numbering prefix is meaningless noise and the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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, but for a three-parameter, zero-coverage tool the description omits scoping, pagination, and defaults entirely. The prefix artifact and lack of any behavioral detail leave real gaps for the agent to guess.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions none of the three parameters. The meaning of 'limite'/'offset' pagination and whether 'hostid' scopes to a single host or defaults to all hosts is left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Consultar') and resource ('inventário de hardware, software e metadados de hosts'), so an agent can tell it reads host inventory data. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as zabbix_consultar_host, zabbix_gerar_relatorio_inventario, or zabbix_atualizar_inventario, so the reader must infer the boundary.

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?

No indication of when to use this instead of zabbix_consultar_host, zabbix_atualizar_inventario, or zabbix_gerar_relatorio_inventario, all of which touch inventory data. No prerequisites (e.g. whether host inventory must be enabled) 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the itemid does not exist, or what 'metadados' actually includes. The read-only nature is only inferable from the verb 'Consultar', not stated.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and economical, but the leading '22.' is unexplained noise that carries no semantic value. Nothing is wasteful beyond that, but nothing is added either.

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. However, for a read tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented parameter, the agent still lacks guidance on obtaining the itemid and on failure modes, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.

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 required parameter, so the description must compensate. 'de um item' does establish that itemid identifies the target item, but it gives no format, no source (e.g., obtainable via zabbix_listar_itens), and no distinction from other Zabbix ID types.

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 ('Consultar') and resource ('configuração e metadados de um item'), clearly a single-item lookup as opposed to the sibling zabbix_listar_itens. It does not explicitly name the sibling or clarify what distinguishes 'metadata' from the history/trends tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use this versus zabbix_listar_itens, zabbix_consultar_historico or zabbix_ultimos_valores. The only guidance is implicit in the tool name and the word 'item'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Consultar' does imply a read-only operation and the phrase 'e seus elementos configurados' hints that the response includes map elements, but permissions, scope and result shape are not disclosed. The presence of an output schema lowers the cost of that omission, keeping this at a mid score rather than lower.

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 tightly written sentence with no padding. It loses a point only because the '69.' numeric prefix is pure noise that delays the actual content.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and a boolean-free schema, the description is technically sufficient to invoke correctly. However, it says nothing about whether all maps are returned, how many, or what 'configured elements' includes, leaving gaps an agent would care about.

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 baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Note that the absence of any parameters also means an agent cannot filter by map name or ID, which the description does not clarify.

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 states a specific verb (consult) and resource (topology maps and their configured elements), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the generation-oriented sibling zabbix_gerar_mapa_monitoramento. The only defect is cosmetic (the leading '69.' numbering noise), not conceptual.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. The closest sibling, zabbix_gerar_mapa_monitoramento, is never mentioned, so an agent must infer the read-vs-generate distinction from the name alone.

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

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, but it discloses almost nothing beyond the basic purpose. It does not clarify read-only behavior, permissions, error conditions, or the meaning of the required eventid, though 'consultar' weakly implies a read operation.

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 short sentence with little waste, but the leading '32.' is extraneous and the sentence is under-specified rather than optimally structured.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, one required parameter at 0% schema coverage, and no explanatory description of that parameter, the definition is incomplete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but usage context and eventid semantics are still missing.

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 required parameter 'eventid' has no schema description. The description mentions 'identificadores de um problema específico' but never explains that eventid is the problem event identifier or what format it expects.

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 clear verb+resource ('Consultar... problema específico') and specifies that it returns details and identifiers. It distinguishes itself implicitly from listing tools by focusing on a specific problem, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as zabbix_listar_problemas or zabbix_obter_historico_problema.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison with alternatives like zabbix_consultar_eventos or zabbix_obter_historico_problema. At most, 'problema específico' implies the tool is for a known problem, but this is not developed.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the observable facets (latency, state) but says nothing about permissions, whether a proxy must be active to be queried, or what happens with an unknown proxyid. Adequate but with clear gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 that wastes nothing. The only blemish is the meaningless sequence number '85.' prefixed to the description.

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 spelled out, and the description does name the key facets. But for a single-required-param lookup with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any guidance on obtaining or formatting proxyid leaves the definition incomplete.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions proxyid — no format, source, or ID-vs-name clarification. The schema alone gives the agent a bare untyped-documented string, so this is a real gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Consultar ... proxy') plus the exact facets returned (detalhes, latência, estado observável), which distinguishes it from list-level siblings like zabbix_listar_proxies and mutation sibling zabbix_gerenciar_proxies. The stray '85.' prefix adds noise but doesn't obscure the purpose.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus zabbix_listar_proxies (to enumerate proxies) or zabbix_gerenciar_proxies (to modify them), and no prerequisite such as needing a proxyid from the list tool. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Consultar' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, what happens if the actionid has no escalation rules, or whether results include disabled entries — all meaningful for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentence is efficient, but the '57.' numeric prefix is dead weight and the sentence front-loads a list-number rather than the operation. It is concise without being informative.

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, but the description omits that a mandatory actionid must be supplied and gives no indication of what the escalation configuration contains. For a tool with a required identifier and zero annotation coverage, this leaves important gaps.

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 required parameter actionid is never mentioned in the description. Critically, the agent is not told that escalation rules are scoped to a parent action, which is the key semantic the parameter demands.

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 (consult) and a specific resource (escalation conditions and steps/regras de escalonamento), so the agent knows roughly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as zabbix_consultar_acoes, which covers overlapping action/escalation territory, and the leading '57.' numbering is noise rather than 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?

The description contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as zabbix_consultar_acoes or zabbix_gerenciar_acoes. The agent must infer from the name alone when escalation-rule lookup is appropriate.

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

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. 'Consultar' does signal a read-only operation and it discloses the payload shape (status + dependencies), but nothing is said about permissions, behavior when the serviceid is invalid, or whether the dependency tree is returned in full depth.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the substance (status + dependencies) leads. The numeric '62.' prefix is catalog noise that adds nothing and slightly hurts scanning.

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, and the description does indicate the two things fetched. What's missing for a 1-param read tool is how to obtain the serviceid and what the lookup covers (current snapshot vs history), leaving a gap an agent must guess at.

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 'serviceid' is never mentioned in the description. It does not say whether the value is a numeric Zabbix service ID versus a name, nor that it should come from zabbix_listar_servicos — the schema's field name is the only hint available.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Consultar status e dependências de um serviço') and it names the two data elements returned, so an agent knows this is a per-service detail read. It does not, however, name how it differs from close siblings like zabbix_listar_servicos or zabbix_consultar_sla_servico.

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?

The singular 'de um serviço' plus a required id implies a single-service lookup rather than a listing, which implicitly routes the agent away from zabbix_listar_servicos. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of zabbix_consultar_sla_servico or zabbix_consultar_disponibilidade_host, and no precondition stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Consultar' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but it discloses nothing about required permissions, whether the data is real-time vs aggregated, or how the SLI window behaves — and there is an output schema to cover return values.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded, but the numbered '65.' prefix is meaningless noise and 'SLA e Service Level Indicators (SLI)' redundantly spells out an acronym without adding selection value.

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?

For a 2-parameter SLA indicator tool with no annotations, the description leaves the periodo_dias window and the nature of the returned SLI data unexplained. The output schema helps with return values, but call-correctness gaps remain.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'de um serviço' faintly maps to serviceid, but periodo_dias (with default 30) — an important temporal window — gets no explanation of its meaning or bounds in either the schema or the description.

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 clear verb (consultar) and resource (indicadores de SLA e SLI) scoped to a single service, which distinguishes it from zabbix_gerar_relatorio_sla and zabbix_consultar_servico. The stray '65.' prefix is noise but doesn't obscure the 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?

No indication of when to use this vs zabbix_consultar_servico, zabbix_gerar_relatorio_sla, or zabbix_consultar_disponibilidade_host. Usage is only implied by the verb and resource name.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Consultar') but never confirms it is non-mutating, has no side effects, or requires no special permission. It also omits any note about the breadth of the returned payload (items, triggers and macros can be large).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no waste. The leading catalog number '76.' is noise that carries no meaning for an agent.

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 format needn't be explained, and a single self-evident parameter keeps the surface small. Still missing is any statement of the scope of 'configurações' and why to choose this over zabbix_consultar_host or zabbix_listar_templates.

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?

Only one required parameter, templateid, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, but the name is self-explanatory and the resource framing makes its meaning evident; a small explicit note (obtain the ID from zabbix_listar_templates) would raise this.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Consultar ... template') plus an enumeration of what is returned (configurações, itens, triggers, macros), which distinguishes it from the sibling zabbix_listar_templates. Loses a point because it never states it operates on a single template by ID, which is the actual differentiator.

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?

No when-to-use instruction and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the detail-lookup counterpart to zabbix_listar_templates and to zabbix_atualizar_template; nothing in the text says so.

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