zabbix_consultar_sla_servico

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Consultar' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but it discloses nothing about required permissions, whether the data is real-time vs aggregated, or how the SLI window behaves — and there is an output schema to cover return values.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded, but the numbered '65.' prefix is meaningless noise and 'SLA e Service Level Indicators (SLI)' redundantly spells out an acronym without adding selection value.

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 2-parameter SLA indicator tool with no annotations, the description leaves the periodo_dias window and the nature of the returned SLI data unexplained. The output schema helps with return values, but call-correctness gaps remain.

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. 'de um serviço' faintly maps to serviceid, but periodo_dias (with default 30) — an important temporal window — gets no explanation of its meaning or bounds in either the schema or the description.

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 (consultar) and resource (indicadores de SLA e SLI) scoped to a single service, which distinguishes it from zabbix_gerar_relatorio_sla and zabbix_consultar_servico. The stray '65.' prefix is noise but doesn't obscure the meaning.

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 vs zabbix_consultar_servico, zabbix_gerar_relatorio_sla, or zabbix_consultar_disponibilidade_host. Usage is only implied by the verb and resource name.

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