zabbix_consultar_problema

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, but it discloses almost nothing beyond the basic purpose. It does not clarify read-only behavior, permissions, error conditions, or the meaning of the required eventid, though 'consultar' weakly implies a read operation.

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 little waste, but the leading '32.' is extraneous and the sentence is under-specified rather than optimally structured.

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 tool with no annotations, one required parameter at 0% schema coverage, and no explanatory description of that parameter, the definition is incomplete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but usage context and eventid semantics are still missing.

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 the single required parameter 'eventid' has no schema description. The description mentions 'identificadores de um problema específico' but never explains that eventid is the problem event identifier or what format it expects.

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 clear verb+resource ('Consultar... problema específico') and specifies that it returns details and identifiers. It distinguishes itself implicitly from listing tools by focusing on a specific problem, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as zabbix_listar_problemas or zabbix_obter_historico_problema.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison with alternatives like zabbix_consultar_eventos or zabbix_obter_historico_problema. At most, 'problema específico' implies the tool is for a known problem, but this is not developed.

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