zabbix_investigar_incidente

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 and delivers very little. It does not say whether the call is read-only, how far back it correlates, how many related objects it pulls, or what side effects (if any) occur; "investigação fundamentada" is an outcome claim, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 efficient sentence with no padding, but it opens with a stray list marker "40." that is noise rather than front-loaded information. The key content (what gets correlated) does come early.

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 shape needn't be explained, but for a multi-resource correlation tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter the description is too thin. Nothing tells the agent the scope of the investigation or how to interpret the result.

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 single parameter eventid is never mentioned in the description, nor is its format (Zabbix numeric event ID) or how it drives the correlation. The mention of "eventos" only faintly implies the entry point, so the description does not 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 description names a specific verb ("Correlacionar") and concrete resources (problemas, hosts, itens, eventos), so an agent can tell this is a composite investigation tool rather than a single-resource query. It does not distinguish itself from look-alike siblings such as zabbix_consultar_problema, zabbix_obter_historico_problema or zabbix_diagnosticar_ambiente.

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 versus the many sibling query/diagnostic tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint is the required eventid, which weakly implies the flow starts from an event, but that is never stated.

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