zabbix_descobrir_rede

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this performs network scanning (side effects on the target network), how hosts are enumerated, what 'limite_hosts' caps, or that 'confirmar_escopo_autorizado' is a safety gate that must be set — all critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 sentence with no filler, so it is concise, but the stray '1.' numbering and the absence of any structure (no when-to-use, no parameter notes) make it an under-specified fragment rather than a well-formed, front-loaded 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 four-parameter network-scanning tool with no annotations and an undocumented confirmation flag, the description is far too thin. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but it should still cover the authorization/confirmation requirement and the host and port limits.

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 and it does not. None of the four parameters (faixa_cidr, portas, limite_hosts, confirmar_escopo_autorizado) are explained; the only hint is the general notion of an authorized network range, leaving the port list, host cap default of 64, and the confirmation flag undocumented.

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 sentence names a specific verb ('Descobrir') and object ('dispositivos em uma faixa de rede'), so the core purpose is inferable. However, it does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as zabbix_verificar_descoberta, zabbix_listar_regras_descoberta, or zabbix_analisar_dispositivo, and the leading '1.' suggests a truncated list rather than a complete purpose statement.

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 phrase 'explicitamente autorizada' hints at a precondition, but the description never says when to call this instead of zabbix_verificar_descoberta or the discovery-rule tools, nor what conditions make a scan appropriate or off-limits. No explicit usage guidance beyond the vague authorization hint.

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