zabbix_converter_pergunta_para_consulta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it does not say whether the tool merely produces a plan or also executes it, what form the plan takes, or what permissions/auth are involved. The phrase 'plano de consulta' hints that it does not execute, but that is inference, not disclosure. The presence of an output schema offsets the need to explain return values, which keeps this from being a 1.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The only blemish is the '92.' ordinal prefix, which is noise in an otherwise efficient definition.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core transformation adequately. However, given that the tool sits alongside dozens of direct query tools, it omits the key context of what happens to the produced plan, leaving an agent to guess the execution model.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'pergunta_em_portugues' has no description, so the description must compensate. It only implies the input is a natural-language question; it never states the language constraint clearly reflected in the parameter name, or any expectations about question scope/granularity needed to produce a good plan.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: transform a natural-language question into a Zabbix API query plan. No sibling tool does NL-to-plan conversion, so the tool is distinguishable on purpose alone, though the definition never says so explicitly. The leading '92.' is a numbering artifact, not semantics.

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 guidance on when this tool should be chosen over the many direct query siblings (zabbix_consultar_host, zabbix_listar_problemas, zabbix_consultar_historico, etc.), and no statement about whether the resulting plan is executed elsewhere or must be executed by another tool. The when-to-use is only inferable from the name and one-sentence purpose.

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