zabbix_listar_problemas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Listar' implies a read, but nothing confirms it is non-destructive, nothing covers pagination defaults (limite=50, offset=0) or result volume, and nothing says whether 'ativos' means unresolved-only or currently-firing alerts. Only the filter dimensions are disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, which is appropriately sized. However, it opens with a meaningless '31.' ordinal that consumes attention without adding information, and the extreme brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economical writing.

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-value format need not be documented. But for a 5-parameter listing tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description omits host scoping and pagination semantics — the two things an agent most needs to call it correctly and repeatedly.

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 coverage is 0% with 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It hints at severidade_minima and reconhecido ('filtros de severidade e status') but leaves hostid, limite, and offset completely unexplained in both schema and prose — notably the pagination pair an agent needs to iterate results.

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 specific verb+resource ('Listar problemas ativos') and names the filter dimensions (severity, status), which is enough for an agent to know this is a bulk listing of active problems rather than a single-problem lookup. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like zabbix_consultar_problema or zabbix_listar_alertas, and the stray '31.' prefix is pure noise.

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 choose this over zabbix_consultar_problema (single problem detail), zabbix_obter_historico_problema, or zabbix_gerar_relatorio_problemas. Usage is only implied by the word 'listar'; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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