zabbix_gerar_relatorio_sla

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 whether this is a read-only generation, what SLA definitions are used, permission requirements, or whether the report is persisted. The phrase "dados adequados" gestures at data selection without explaining it. Output schema coverage offsets return-value disclosure somewhat.

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 short, but almost all of it is non-informative: an ordinal prefix "47." and a filler clause. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing, and no substance is front-loaded.

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 reporting tool in a family of seven near-identical report generators with an undocumented slaid parameter and no annotations, the description should at least identify the report's scope and how it differs from zabbix_consultar_sla_servico. The output schema helps with return values, but the selection context is absent.

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 slaid has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so the agent cannot tell whether it is an SLA definition ID, a date selector, or a report template. With only one optional param the cost is limited, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource ("Gerar relatório de SLA") is identifiable, so the agent knows it produces an SLA report. However, the numbered prefix "47." is noise and the qualifier "usando definições e dados adequados" adds nothing. Nothing distinguishes it from sibling report tools (relatório_executivo, disponibilidade, problemas, desempenho, capacidade) or from zabbix_consultar_sla_servico.

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 tool versus the six other report generators or the SLA-service query tool. No prerequisites, no scope conditions, no exclusions are given, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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