zabbix_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well. It explicitly declares the tool as a read operation, states the ordering, reveals the 500-event cap, and documents the `truncated` flag and the correct follow-up action.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, starting with the READ tag and the core purpose before explaining truncation behavior and parameters. Every sentence adds necessary information, and there is no repetition of schema defaults or filler.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly: purpose, ordering, truncation semantics, cap, and both parameters. The `truncated` flag disclosure is especially important because it prevents the agent from misinterpreting partial results.

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?

The schema provides only titles and defaults with 0% description coverage, so the description must document the parameters. It does so completely: `top` is explained as the number of events to return with a 500 cap, and `target` is explained as the Zabbix target name from config with a clear 'omit for default' instruction.

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 clearly states the resource ('Zabbix trigger events'), the operation ([READ]), and the ordering ('newest first'). It is specific enough to separate events from triggers or hosts, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like zabbix_problems or zabbix_triggers.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: retrieving recent Zabbix trigger events, newest first. It also gives actionable guidance about re-running with a higher `top` when `truncated` is true, but it never mentions alternatives or conditions for choosing a different sibling tool.

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