zabbix_consultar_disponibilidade_host

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose that this is a read-only lookup, what 'disponibilidade' comprises (triggers, interface status, agents availability), or whether a nonexistent hostid errors or returns empty. Only the existence of an output schema partially covers the return shape.

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 short and front-loaded, but the leading index number '20.' is meaningless to an agent and the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being earned economy.

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 covers return values, but for a tool whose whole purpose is interpreting host availability, the description never defines what is measured or how to interpret it, and leaves the required hostid semantics undocumented. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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% for the single parameter 'hostid', and the description adds nothing about what it expects (Zabbix internal host ID vs visible name) or its format. With one undocumented parameter, the description should compensate but does not.

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 names a verb ('consultar') and a resource ('disponibilidade e o estado observável do host'), which is more than a tautology. However, the leading '20.' is unexplained noise, and there is no differentiation from close siblings such as zabbix_consultar_host, zabbix_listar_problemas, or zabbix_gerar_relatorio_disponibilidade, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them.

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 tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With siblings like zabbix_consultar_host and zabbix_verificar_coleta overlapping conceptually, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.