zabbix_consultar_historico_notificacoes

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. 'Consultar' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain permissions, pagination, what 'quando disponíveis' means for results, or any other operational 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler beyond the irrelevant '53.' prefix. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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 described, but the input side is completely undocumented and there is no usage context or sibling differentiation. For a three-parameter tool with no annotations, this is not enough to call it reliably.

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?

All three parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description does not mention any of them. It gives no meaning for tempo_de, tempo_ate, or apenas_falhas beyond what their bare names imply, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the resource ('notificações') and that results are consulted when available, but it does not clarify that this is historical notification data or distinguish it from siblings like zabbix_listar_alertas or zabbix_listar_canais_notificacao. The leading '53.' adds no semantic value. Purpose is inferable but vague.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer its role among many notification- and alert-related siblings from the name alone.

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