zabbix_consultar_auditoria

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.