zabbix_diagnosticar_coleta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it says nothing about side effects, permissions, or whether this is a safe read. An agent cannot tell whether this mutates state, hits external hosts, or is rate-limited. It does not even confirm the operation is read-only diagnostic analysis.

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 short, but the "30." ordinal is leftover noise and the single sentence is under-specified rather than efficient. It is not a case of saying a lot briefly, but of saying too little.

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 values need not be explained, but with zero annotations and an undocumented required parameter the definition leaves the core invocation contract unexplained. For a diagnostic tool in a crowded troubleshooting cluster, this is not sufficient to call it correctly.

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?

The single required parameter hostid has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing — not even that the input is a host ID, nor its format (numeric Zabbix hostid vs. host name). With one undocumented parameter and no compensating text, the agent must guess.

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 verb "Correlacionar" is paired with four named data domains (erros, disponibilidade, intervalos, dados ausentes) for a host, which hints at a diagnostic/root-cause tool. But it never states what the tool produces (a diagnosis report? a correlation matrix?) and does not distinguish it from close siblings like zabbix_verificar_coleta or zabbix_detectar_lacunas_coleta. The stray "30." prefix is a list fragment, not a 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus zabbix_verificar_coleta, zabbix_detectar_lacunas_coleta, or zabbix_analisar_dispositivo, all of which sit in the same troubleshooting space. Usage is only inferable from the word "Correlacionar"; no prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing.

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