zabbix_listar_servicos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no permission requirements, no pagination behavior, and no hint that results are capped by default at 50. Only "disponíveis" hints at a filtering scope, and even that is ambiguous.

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 is efficient, but the leading "61." is dead weight and the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 covers return values, but for a paginated list tool in a large tool family, the description omits pagination semantics, default truncation risk, and relationship to the service-detail and SLA siblings — all things an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 two parameters (limite, offset) are bare integers with defaults. The description never mentions pagination, page size, or ordering, so an agent must guess what limite/offset control and that results may be truncated.

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 and resource: listing available business services. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular zabbix_consultar_servico sibling, though the stray "61." numbering prefix adds noise rather than meaning.

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 indication of when to use this versus zabbix_consultar_servico, zabbix_identificar_servicos, or zabbix_consultar_sla_servico. No mention of prerequisites, and no note about paging through a large service tree.

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