zabbix_consultar_servico

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' does signal a read-only operation and it discloses the payload shape (status + dependencies), but nothing is said about permissions, behavior when the serviceid is invalid, or whether the dependency tree is returned in full depth.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the substance (status + dependencies) leads. The numeric '62.' prefix is catalog noise that adds nothing and slightly hurts scanning.

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, and the description does indicate the two things fetched. What's missing for a 1-param read tool is how to obtain the serviceid and what the lookup covers (current snapshot vs history), leaving a gap an agent must guess at.

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 parameter 'serviceid' is never mentioned in the description. It does not say whether the value is a numeric Zabbix service ID versus a name, nor that it should come from zabbix_listar_servicos — the schema's field name is the only hint available.

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 status e dependências de um serviço') and it names the two data elements returned, so an agent knows this is a per-service detail read. It does not, however, name how it differs from close siblings like zabbix_listar_servicos or zabbix_consultar_sla_servico.

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 singular 'de um serviço' plus a required id implies a single-service lookup rather than a listing, which implicitly routes the agent away from zabbix_listar_servicos. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of zabbix_consultar_sla_servico or zabbix_consultar_disponibilidade_host, and no precondition stated.

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