zabbix_verificar_descoberta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not say whether the operation is read-only, what permissions it needs, or what it returns. Naming the checks it performs ('falhas, duplicidades, dispositivos não resolvidos') is the only behavioral signal, which is thin for an unannotated tool.

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 efficient sentence, but the leading '10.' ordinal is noise unless the agent knows the workflow sequence, and the sentence is slightly overloaded by listing three distinct checks.

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 the required input array is undocumented and there are no annotations covering safety or scope. An agent cannot reliably know what to pass or whether calling it is safe.

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% and the description never mentions 'hostids'. It does not clarify whether these are discovered host IDs, their format, or whether the array accepts multiple hosts, so the required parameter is entirely undocumented.

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 ('Verificar o resultado da descoberta') and names concrete checks (falhas, duplicidades, dispositivos não resolvidos), which lets an agent distinguish it from pure discovery tools like zabbix_descobrir_rede. It only partially separates itself from zabbix_deduplicar_dispositivos, since duplication checking is listed as one of its outputs.

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 statement of when to use this versus zabbix_analisar_dispositivo, zabbix_deduplicar_dispositivos, or zabbix_previsualizar_cadastro. The leading '10.' hints it is a later workflow step, but no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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