zabbix_listar_proxies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the bare action — no read-only confirmation, no scope constraints (e.g., all proxies vs. filtered), no pagination or permission notes. Listing is implicitly safe, but that is inference rather than 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?

A single short sentence, well front-loaded after the ordinal. The '84.' list-number prefix adds confusion rather than information, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema covering return values and no input parameters, the minimum needed to invoke the tool is present. However, nothing explains how this listing relates to the adjacent proxy tools, leaving routing ambiguity in a very crowded sibling set.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter semantics are needed.

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 and resource ('Listar proxies cadastrados no Zabbix'), so the agent knows it retrieves the registered proxy list. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as zabbix_consultar_proxy or zabbix_gerenciar_proxies, and the leading '84.' is unexplained 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 statement of when to use this tool versus zabbix_consultar_proxy (single-proxy detail) or zabbix_gerenciar_proxies (create/update/delete). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Listar'.

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