zabbix_consultar_eventos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read operation and discloses nothing about permissions, pagination, default limits, return shape, or time-range semantics. For a query tool with zero structured behavioral coverage this is a significant 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 short sentence with the key information front-loaded, which is efficient. But the leading ordinal "33." is noise and the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 need not be explained. Still, for a 5-parameter, annotation-free tool, the description leaves an agent unable to know timestamp format, severity scale, default-limit behavior, or how it differs from the many sibling event/problem tools.

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 every parameter is bare (hostid, limite, tempo_de, tempo_ate, severidade). The description hints at host, period, and severity but never explains that tempo_de/tempo_ate are integers (unix timestamps?), what severity integer values mean, or what "limite" controls; it also mentions "objeto" which is not a parameter.

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 specific verb+resource ("Consultar eventos") and lists the filter dimensions, so an agent can tell it is a read/query tool for Zabbix events. However, it does not distinguish this from closely related siblings such as zabbix_listar_problemas or zabbix_consultar_problema, and the listed filter "objeto" has no matching parameter.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus zabbix_listar_problemas, zabbix_consultar_problema, or zabbix_obter_historico_problema, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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