zabbix_consultar_historico

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether the read is safe, not how retention windows or history-vs-trends storage affect results, not what the default 50-record limit implies, and not what happens when tempo_de/tempo_ate are omitted. It never even states this is a read-only retrieval against a specific item.

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?

The sentence is short, but shortness here is under-specification rather than concision. The leading ordinal '25.' is noise that leaks from a list and adds no meaning for an agent.

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 explanation is fairly excused, but for a five-parameter time-series query tool with zero schema documentation the description leaves the agent guessing on units, defaults and history types. It is far short of what is needed to invoke the tool correctly on the first attempt.

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% across five parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. It does not explain that itemid is the required Zabbix item identifier, that limite caps returned rows, that tempo_de/tempo_ate are time bounds (seconds vs. timestamp is unknown), or what values historico_tipo accepts — a critical gap for a numeric enum-typed field.

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 and resource (consult historical data of items), which is more than a tautology, but it carries a stray enumeration prefix ('25.') and does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings such as zabbix_ultimos_valores, zabbix_consultar_tendencias or zabbix_consultar_item. An agent cannot tell from the text which of these retrieves time-series history versus current values versus trend aggregates.

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, when not to, or which alternative to pick. The only implied guidance is the word 'histórico', which the agent must infer against several sibling tools that also return time-related metric data.

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