zabbix_analisar_falsos_positivos

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.