zabbix_consultar_estado_sistema

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. 'Recuperar' implies a read, but the description says nothing about authentication requirements, whether any calls to the Zabbix API are expensive, or how the returned state should be interpreted. With zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 efficient sentence, but the leading '90.' is unexplained ordinal noise that consumes attention without adding meaning. The actual content is front-loaded and otherwise waste-free.

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 details need not be explained. For a zero-parameter status tool the description is mostly sufficient, but 'estado geral do sistema' remains vague about what is actually reported, and nothing clarifies how this differs from the broader environment-diagnostic sibling.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty properties object is self-explanatory.

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 ('Recuperar') plus concrete resources: Zabbix version, HA nodes, queue, and general system state. An agent can tell this is a health/status snapshot tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as zabbix_diagnosticar_ambiente or zabbix_validar_conexao.

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 call this versus the many diagnostic and reporting siblings, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name that this is a first-stop health check.

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