zabbix_obter_historico_problema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only implies a read operation via 'Recuperar'. It says nothing about whether history/events are paginated, time-bounded, ordered, or what permissions are needed, and it doesn't clarify the relationship between 'histórico' and 'eventos'.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the leading '39.' is leftover enumeration noise that adds no value and the single sentence is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 problem-history tool in a dense sibling set the description omits sibling disambiguation and the meaning/format of the sole required parameter. It is not sufficient for reliable invocation.

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?

There is one required parameter, eventid, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must explain it. The phrase 'associados ao problema' hints that eventid identifies a problem event, but it never states format (numeric event id as a string) or whether the problem's eventid or an arbitrary event id is expected.

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 ('Recuperar') and resource ('histórico e eventos associados ao problema'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as zabbix_consultar_problema, zabbix_consultar_eventos or zabbix_investigar_incidente, leaving the agent to guess which one returns the problem history.

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 tool versus the many adjacent problem/event tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives anywhere in the description.

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