zabbix_gerar_relatorio_disponibilidade

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 it discloses nothing beyond purpose — not whether the report is read-only, what time window default applies, whether it aggregates over groups or services, or what permissions are needed. The only implicit signal is that a report is generated rather than data mutated.

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 short sentence with no redundancy, which is good for front-loading, but the "42." numbering prefix is noise and the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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 needn't be explained, but for a reporting tool with two undocumented optional parameters and ~20 sibling relatorio/availability tools, the description leaves the agent without the scope, defaults, or routing information needed to call it confidently.

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% and both parameters (grupo_nome, periodo_dias) are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate — but it mentions neither. An agent cannot tell from this text whether periodo_dias defaults to 30 days, what happens when grupo_nome is null (all groups?), or what format grupo_nome expects.

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 states a clear verb+resource ("Gerar relatório de disponibilidade de hosts e serviços"), so the agent knows the general purpose. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings such as zabbix_gerar_relatorio_sla, zabbix_gerar_relatorio_desempenho, or zabbix_consultar_disponibilidade_host, and the leading "42." is a list artifact rather than information.

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 statement of when to use this report versus the many other relatorio tools or the direct availability query tool. The only implied usage is the tool's name, which the agent already has.

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