zabbix_consultar_proxy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the observable facets (latency, state) but says nothing about permissions, whether a proxy must be active to be queried, or what happens with an unknown proxyid. Adequate but with clear gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 that wastes nothing. The only blemish is the meaningless sequence number '85.' prefixed to the description.

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 spelled out, and the description does name the key facets. But for a single-required-param lookup with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any guidance on obtaining or formatting proxyid leaves the definition incomplete.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions proxyid — no format, source, or ID-vs-name clarification. The schema alone gives the agent a bare untyped-documented string, so this is a real 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Consultar ... proxy') plus the exact facets returned (detalhes, latência, estado observável), which distinguishes it from list-level siblings like zabbix_listar_proxies and mutation sibling zabbix_gerenciar_proxies. The stray '85.' prefix adds noise but doesn't obscure the purpose.

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 statement of when to use this versus zabbix_listar_proxies (to enumerate proxies) or zabbix_gerenciar_proxies (to modify them), and no prerequisite such as needing a proxyid from the list tool. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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