zabbix_listar_itens

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: no statement that it is read-only, no pagination behavior despite limite/offset params, no mention of how many items are returned by default or whether truncation occurs. Because an output schema exists, return-value structure need not be described, but operational behavior is still missing.

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 compact sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. However, the leading ordinal "21." is leftover documentation noise that adds no meaning and wastes the highest-attention position.

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?

Five optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and a list tool that could return large volumes — the description does not cover paging, default limits, status encoding, or how results relate to the item-lookup sibling. It is well short of what an agent needs to call this correctly the first time.

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 the description must compensate, yet it only loosely names three of the five parameters (host, chave, status) and adds a filter "tipo" that does not exist in the schema. It says nothing about limite/offset behavior or what values status accepts (e.g. 0=enabled, 1=disabled).

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 clear verb+resource ("Listar itens de coleta") and names the filter dimensions, so an agent knows this is a read-only enumeration of items. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling zabbix_consultar_item (single-item lookup), leaving the agent to infer that this one is bulk/filtered.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent that zabbix_consultar_item is the single-item alternative or that zabbix_consultar_historico/zabbix_ultimos_valores should be used once item IDs are known.

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