zabbix_consultar_mapas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Consultar' does imply a read-only operation and the phrase 'e seus elementos configurados' hints that the response includes map elements, but permissions, scope and result shape are not disclosed. The presence of an output schema lowers the cost of that omission, keeping this at a mid score rather than lower.

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 tightly written sentence with no padding. It loses a point only because the '69.' numeric prefix is pure noise that delays the actual content.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and a boolean-free schema, the description is technically sufficient to invoke correctly. However, it says nothing about whether all maps are returned, how many, or what 'configured elements' includes, leaving gaps an agent would care about.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Note that the absence of any parameters also means an agent cannot filter by map name or ID, which the description does not clarify.

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 a specific verb (consult) and resource (topology maps and their configured elements), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the generation-oriented sibling zabbix_gerar_mapa_monitoramento. The only defect is cosmetic (the leading '69.' numbering noise), not conceptual.

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 versus alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. The closest sibling, zabbix_gerar_mapa_monitoramento, is never mentioned, so an agent must infer the read-vs-generate distinction 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.