zabbix_consultar_acoes

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.