zabbix_consultar_trigger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about required permissions, error behavior when a triggerid is invalid or missing, or the scope of state returned. Only 'consultar' weakly implies a safe read.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the leading ordinal '35.' is noise that carries no meaning for an agent selecting the tool.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the tool is a simple single-parameter read, so the minimum is met. However, there is no annotation coverage, no guidance on sourcing the triggerid, and no note on failure modes for an invalid or hidden trigger.

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 description never mentions the required 'triggerid' parameter, its format, or where to obtain it (e.g., from zabbix_listar_triggers). With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the empty schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Consultar') and resource ('trigger'), plus the facets returned (expressão, estado, metadados). This lets an agent distinguish it from zabbix_listar_triggers, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool such as zabbix_listar_triggers is named. The distinction between consulting a single trigger and listing triggers must be inferred from the verb and the single required ID.

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