zabbix_gerar_relatorio_capacidade

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 state whether the tool is read-only, what data range is analyzed, whether the report is returned inline or persisted, or what permissions are needed. Only the existence of an output schema partially mitigates the missing return-value information.

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 a single sentence with no filler, but it carries a stray list numbering prefix ('46.') and is not front-loaded with the concrete action (generating a capacity report). Concise but not well structured.

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?

Given no annotations, an undocumented optional parameter, and a large family of near-identical report siblings, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what time horizon is analyzed, what the report contains, and how it differs from the other relatorio_* tools. The output schema only covers return values.

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 the single hostid parameter, and the description says nothing about it — not whether it scopes the report to one host or whether omitting it covers all hosts. The phrase 'dados disponíveis' hints at data scoping but adds no usable parameter meaning.

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 names a resource area (capacity trends and indicators) but uses a vague verb ('Analisar') and does not clearly say it produces a capacity report, which is what the tool name promises. It offers no differentiation from the many sibling report tools (desempenho, disponibilidade, SLA, problemas), so an agent cannot easily tell which report to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, time windows, or exclusions, and no reference to the alternative report tools in the sibling set. An agent must guess whether this or zabbix_gerar_relatorio_desempenho is the right choice for capacity questions.

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