zabbix_auditar_cobertura_templates

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.