zabbix_gerar_relatorio_problemas

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, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions needed, report format, or how aggregation handles open vs. resolved problems. The one-line text leaves the agent guessing about everything beyond the bare purpose.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good, but it is under-specified for the tool's role and carries a meaningless '43.' numbering artifact. Brevity here reflects omission rather than disciplined editing.

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 the description claims grouping by 'host' while the schema exposes no host parameter, creating confusion about what can actually be scoped. Severity semantics and report scope remain unexplained for a tool with 0% parameter documentation.

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 the description only loosely maps to the two parameters via 'período' and 'severidade'. It does not explain that the period is in days, what the severity scale is (e.g., Zabbix 0–5), or what the default of 2 means, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 verb ('Consolidar') and resource ('problemas') and scopes it to period, host, and severity, so an agent can tell it produces an aggregated report rather than raw listings like zabbix_listar_problemas. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the many sibling report generators (executivo, disponibilidade, SLA), and the leading '43.' is stray noise.

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 exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as zabbix_listar_problemas or zabbix_obter_historico_problema. The report intent is only implied by the verb 'Consolidar'.

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