zabbix_gerar_relatorio_desempenho

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds only that metrics are analyzed 'when available,' but does not disclose whether the tool merely reads data or creates/stores a report, what permissions are needed, or how the report is produced.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence, but the leading '44.' is a formatting artifact rather than useful structure. It is concise but under-specified for a report-generation tool.

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 in detail. However, for a report tool surrounded by similar report siblings, the description does not clarify report scope, time period, host filtering, or how it differs from capacity/executive/availability reports.

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 parameter 'hostid' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. With low schema coverage, the description should clarify whether hostid scopes the report to one host or is optional; it does neither.

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 specific resource area (CPU, memory, disk, network metrics), but the verb 'Analisar' does not match the tool name's 'gerar relatório' (generate report). The stray '44.' prefix adds noise, and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as zabbix_gerar_relatorio_capacidade or zabbix_analisar_dispositivo.

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 tool versus the many sibling report and analysis tools. 'quando disponíveis' describes data availability, not selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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