zabbix_events

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the [READ] label, so no contradiction. Beyond the annotation, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: results are newest-first, 'top' is capped at 500, and a 'truncated: true' flag signals an incomplete result set — non-obvious traits the annotation does not cover.

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 short and front-loaded, leading with the resource and ordering before the pagination caveat. The boilerplate Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but stays brief and each line carries 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?

With no output schema and no annotation richness, the description adequately covers the call contract, ordering, and truncation behavior. It stops short of describing what an event record contains, but for a simple read/list tool that gap is minor.

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 carry the parameter meaning, and it largely does: 'top' is the count (newest first, capped at 500) and 'target' is a Zabbix config target name that may be omitted for the default. It does not document the default value of 50 or the default-target behavior in detail, but the semantics are clear.

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 names a specific verb-less but clear resource: the most recent Zabbix trigger events, newest first, and marks it [READ]. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like list_events by naming the Zabbix trigger-event domain, but it never explicitly contrasts with the closest Zabbix siblings such as 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?

It gives a concrete follow-up rule (re-run with a higher 'top' instead of treating a truncated result as the full history), which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus zabbix_problems, zabbix_triggers, or the generic list_events, so routing is left to inference.

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