zabbix_exportar_relatorio_excel

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 and delivers almost nothing: no mention of what report types exist, whether the report is generated from live data, how long it takes, or where the file is written. An output schema exists, so return format needn't be repeated, but everything else about behavior is missing.

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, front-loaded with the action, but it carries a stray list-numbering artifact ('49.') and is concise by omission rather than by economy. Nothing is wasteful, yet little is said.

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 3-parameter report export with no annotations and no schema descriptions, an agent cannot tell what data will land in the spreadsheet or what tipo_relatorio accepts. The output schema covers the return value, but the call itself remains underspecified relative to the surrounding report-generation family.

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% for all three parameters (nome_arquivo, periodo_dias, tipo_relatorio), so the description must compensate and does not. The only hint is 'abas pertinentes', which gives no meaning to any parameter, and notably the valid values for tipo_relatorio (default 'executivo') are never listed.

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?

States a verb and resource ('Gerar planilha XLSX com dados estruturados'), so the output format is clear, but 'dados estruturados e abas pertinentes' is circular and never says which Zabbix data is exported. With many siblings (zabbix_gerar_relatorio_executivo, zabbix_exportar_relatorio_pdf, etc.) the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from them.

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 to use this instead of the sibling report generators (executivo, disponibilidade, problemas, SLA) or instead of zabbix_exportar_relatorio_pdf. Only the output format implies an 'export to Excel' use case, which is inferred rather than stated.

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