zabbix_consultar_inventario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet only 'consultar' hints at read-only behavior. It says nothing about pagination semantics, default result volume, whether an absent hostid means all hosts, or what happens when inventory fields are unset.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, but the '71.' list-numbering prefix is meaningless noise and the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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, but for a three-parameter, zero-coverage tool the description omits scoping, pagination, and defaults entirely. The prefix artifact and lack of any behavioral detail leave real gaps for the agent to guess.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions none of the three parameters. The meaning of 'limite'/'offset' pagination and whether 'hostid' scopes to a single host or defaults to all hosts is left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Consultar') and resource ('inventário de hardware, software e metadados de hosts'), so an agent can tell it reads host inventory data. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as zabbix_consultar_host, zabbix_gerar_relatorio_inventario, or zabbix_atualizar_inventario, so the reader must infer the boundary.

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?

No indication of when to use this instead of zabbix_consultar_host, zabbix_atualizar_inventario, or zabbix_gerar_relatorio_inventario, all of which touch inventory data. No prerequisites (e.g. whether host inventory must be enabled) or exclusions are stated.

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