zabbix_identificar_servicos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers little: it doesn't say whether the tool probes the host, wraps an existing scan, or only reasons over the supplied port list, nor what permissions or side effects exist. The 'não intrusivo' phrase is the only behavioral signal offered.

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 no bloat, but the leading '4.' numbering is noise and the terseness reflects under-specification rather than economy.

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 tool that takes a target IP plus a port list with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition should clarify what 'identificar serviços' produces and how it relates to the open-port input. That guidance 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two required parameters, and the description never mentions 'ip' or 'portas_abertas' or how the open-port list drives service identification. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds nothing about format or expected input.

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 verb+object ('Identificar serviços monitoráveis'), which separates it from discovery siblings like zabbix_descobrir_rede or zabbix_identificar_sistema_operacional, but 'serviços monitoráveis' is never defined and the leading '4.' is an orphan workflow marker rather than a purpose statement.

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?

No statement of when this should be called versus zabbix_analisar_dispositivo or zabbix_identificar_sistema_operacional, and no prerequisites. The only contextual cue is 'métodos autorizados e não intrusivos', which hints at a constraint but not at tool selection.

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