zabbix_consultar_descoberta_baixo_nivel

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.