zabbix_gerar_relatorio_executivo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers almost none of it: it never states that this is a read-only aggregation, how expensive/wide the scan is, what the aggregation level is, or whether omitting grupo_nome broadens scope to the whole environment. Only the existence of an output schema spares it from having to describe the return shape.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded, which is efficient. However it carries a leftover list artifact ("41.") and is so terse that the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 report-generating tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations and a host of near-duplicate report siblings, the description gives an agent too little to invoke it confidently. The output schema covers return values, but scope, period semantics and sibling selection remain unexplained.

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%, so neither parameter is documented anywhere. The description does not mention grupo_nome (what group scoping means, or that null/omitted = all groups) nor periodo_dias (that it defaults to 7 and defines the reporting window), leaving both semantics to be guessed from the names.

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 and output artifact ("Gerar um resumo executivo consolidado") applied to a specific scope ("estado do ambiente"), so an agent can tell it produces a summary report. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling report tools (relatorio_sla, relatorio_disponibilidade, relatorio_problemas) or from zabbix_diagnosticar_ambiente, leaving the 'consolidado' distinction implicit.

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 pick this over the other report/diagnostic siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that an 'executive consolidated' summary is the umbrella option versus the per-domain reports.

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