zabbix_recomendar_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not say whether this is a read-only recommendation or a mutation, what compatibility rules apply, or what the output contains (even though an output schema exists). The only behavioral hint is the word 'Recomendar', which implies non-destructive analysis but is not confirmed.

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 fragment with a leftover ordinal prefix '7.', which is not front-loaded with a clear action or scope. The brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

For a three-parameter recommendation tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the definition is far too thin. Even with an output schema present, the agent lacks enough information about inputs (portas_abertas, tipo_dispositivo) and intended usage to call it reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It vaguely alludes to 'sistema operacional' and 'serviços', but never names 'portas_abertas' or 'tipo_dispositivo', nor explains formats (e.g., integer port list) or defaults.

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 the tool recommends templates based on OS, services, and compatibility, which conveys a rough purpose. However, it is a fragment beginning with a stray list number '7.' and never distinguishes this recommendation step from siblings such as zabbix_listar_templates or zabbix_associar_templates_host.

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 call this tool versus alternatives like zabbix_listar_templates, zabbix_consultar_template, or zabbix_auditar_cobertura_templates. The agent must infer the workflow position entirely from the fragment.

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