zabbix_verificar_coleta

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 discloses nothing beyond the one-line purpose: no statement that it is read-only/non-mutating, no mention of what 'prazos esperados' thresholds mean, no cost, timeout, or failure behavior. An output schema exists, which relieves it of describing return values, but the behavioral profile is essentially empty.

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 that is front-loaded with the action, so there is no wasted prose. The only blemish is the '28.' ordinal prefix, which is noise rather than information.

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 tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the description should explain scope (one host vs. all), what 'prazos esperados' is measured against, and what a failing result implies. The output schema covers return shape, but the semantics an agent needs to invoke it correctly are missing.

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% for the single parameter 'hostid', and the description never mentions that the check is scoped to a host or what hostid identifies. The agent must guess that hostid restricts the collection check to one host rather than the whole environment.

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 gives a verb ('Verificar') and a resource ('itens ativos... coletando dados dentro dos prazos esperados'), so the general intent is inferable. However, it overlaps heavily with close siblings such as zabbix_detectar_lacunas_coleta and zabbix_diagnosticar_coleta and does nothing to distinguish itself from them. The leading '28.' numbering is noise that adds no 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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of zabbix_detectar_lacunas_coleta or zabbix_diagnosticar_coleta, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a hostid must be resolved first, or which hosts are meaningful targets). The only usage signal is the implied read-only 'check' framing.

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