zabbix_gerar_mapa_monitoramento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Usando dados reais' hints that it queries live Zabbix data rather than a static cache, but it says nothing about read-only safety, output size limits, whether the diagram is rendered or returned as raw Mermaid text, or failure modes when no hosts match.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. The leading '70.' is a stray list artifact that adds no meaning but costs 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 described, but for a tool that generates a diagram the description omits scope (all hosts? all groups?), size/scale caveats, and how the Mermaid output is delivered. The one optional parameter's semantics are also left unexplained, so the definition is thin for correct invocation.

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 grupo_nome is undocumented. The phrase 'dos hosts e grupos' weakly implies the parameter scopes to a host group, but the nullable default (null = presumably all groups) is never explained, leaving the agent to guess at the effect of omitting it.

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 specific verb ('Construir') and artifact ('representação visual (Mermaid diagram)') over a defined resource set ('hosts e grupos'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not contrast itself with near-neighbors like zabbix_consultar_mapas or the relatório tools, but the artifact type is distinctive enough to disambiguate in practice.

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 choose this over zabbix_consultar_mapas, zabbix_gerar_relatorio_* or zabbix_listar_hosts, and no prerequisites (e.g., data must already exist in Zabbix). Usage can only be inferred from the artifact type.

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