zabbix_consultar_template

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Consultar') but never confirms it is non-mutating, has no side effects, or requires no special permission. It also omits any note about the breadth of the returned payload (items, triggers and macros can be large).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no waste. The leading catalog number '76.' is noise that carries no meaning for an agent.

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 format needn't be explained, and a single self-evident parameter keeps the surface small. Still missing is any statement of the scope of 'configurações' and why to choose this over zabbix_consultar_host or zabbix_listar_templates.

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?

Only one required parameter, templateid, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, but the name is self-explanatory and the resource framing makes its meaning evident; a small explicit note (obtain the ID from zabbix_listar_templates) would raise this.

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 ... template') plus an enumeration of what is returned (configurações, itens, triggers, macros), which distinguishes it from the sibling zabbix_listar_templates. Loses a point because it never states it operates on a single template by ID, which is the actual differentiator.

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 when-to-use instruction and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the detail-lookup counterpart to zabbix_listar_templates and to zabbix_atualizar_template; nothing in the text says so.

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