zabbix_listar_manutencoes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does almost nothing: 'listar' implies a read, but nothing confirms it is non-mutating or safe. Pagination behavior is completely unaddressed even though 'limite' (default 50) and 'offset' strongly suggest a paged result set — the agent cannot tell whether it must loop, and there is no mention of auth requirements or result volume.

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 filler, so it is efficient. It loses a point because the '66.' prefix is meaningless noise occupying the highest-salience position, where the paging or scope constraint should have been.

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 explained. But for a two-parameter, unannotated list tool with zero schema descriptions, the description supplies neither paging guidance nor any separation from the three sibling maintenance/host tools — an agent has no basis to call it correctly beyond guessing defaults.

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 both parameters ('limite' and 'offset') are documented nowhere but their names and defaults. The description adds no semantics for either — no page-size ceiling, no explanation of how offset interacts with results. The names are conventional enough to be largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1-2, but 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 states a specific verb ('Listar') and resource ('períodos de manutenção configurados'), which is enough for an agent to know this reads maintenance windows rather than creating or updating them. It does not name or distinguish itself from the mutating siblings zabbix_criar_manutencao and zabbix_atualizar_manutencao, and the leading '66.' is an unexplained list artifact rather than description content.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus zabbix_criar_manutencao, zabbix_atualizar_manutencao, or the broader listing tools such as zabbix_listar_hosts. No prerequisites, no scope conditions, no exclusions — the agent must infer everything from the verb.

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