zabbix_planejar_automacao

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it omits whether anything is persisted or mutated, whether approval is required, and what permissions are actually checked. It also doesn't clarify whether 'permissões necessárias' are returned data or required caller scopes.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with little filler, but the stray numbering prefix '96.' is meaningless noise and the sentence is too compressed to convey anything about inputs or outcomes.

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 needn't be described, but for a planning tool with two undocumented, required, free-form inputs and no annotations, the description leaves an agent without enough to construct a valid call or know what the plan is used for downstream.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions etapas and dependências/permissões, but the schema only has descricao_objetivo (string) and etapas_propostas (unconstrained array of objects) — the description does not explain what goes in the string, what keys each step object needs, or why dependencies/permissions have no corresponding parameter.

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 sentence names a specific action (elaborar um plano de execução) with concrete elements (etapas, dependências, permissões). However, the leading "96." is unexplained noise, and the description never anchors the plan to Zabbix context or distinguishes it from sibling tools like zabbix_executar_fluxo_aprovado or zabbix_previsualizar_alteracao.

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 rather than the many concrete operation siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g., must come after zabbix_diagnosticar_ambiente or before zabbix_executar_fluxo_aprovado). Usage is only inferable from the word 'planejar'.

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