zabbix_reconhecer_problema

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 only notes that an audit message accompanies the action. It does not say whether acknowledgement is reversible, how the problem's state or visibility changes afterward, what permissions are needed, or what the acao default of 6 means.

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 no wasted clauses, but the leading list number '38.' is noise and the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, an opaque action-code parameter, and no parameter documentation, the description does far too little. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but nothing else compensates for the gaps.

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% across three parameters. The phrase 'mensagem de auditoria' loosely maps to the 'mensagem' parameter, but 'eventid' and especially 'acao' (an integer defaulting to 6, clearly an API action code) are left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (Reconhecer/Acknowledge) and resource (problema), plus the fact that an audit message is attached. This is clear enough for an agent to know it is a write-style acknowledgement action rather than a read, though it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as zabbix_consultar_problema or zabbix_suprimir_notificacoes.

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 acknowledge versus when to consult, suppress, or escalate a problem, and no prerequisites (permissions, required event state) are mentioned. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the tool name.

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