zabbix_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and meets it by explicitly labeling the operation '[READ]', indicating no mutating side effects. It also discloses the output scope: hosts with interfaces and owning groups. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but for a simple read-only inventory tool the key behavioral signal is present.

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: the action and resource appear in the first line, followed by a single necessary parameter explanation. No sentences are wasted, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly: read-only behavior, the high-level return content (hosts, interfaces, owning groups), and the parameter's source and default behavior. Given the low complexity, nothing significant is 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?

The schema only defines 'target' as a nullable string with a default, but the description explains its meaning: a Zabbix target name from config, and that omitting it selects the default. Since this is the only parameter and schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates and leaves no ambiguity.

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 opens with the explicit verb '[READ]' and names the exact resource: 'Zabbix hosts', further narrowed by what is included ('interfaces + owning groups') and the intended purpose ('health inventory'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as zabbix_problems or zabbix_hostgroups.

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 phrase '(health inventory)' gives clear context that this tool is for retrieving Zabbix host inventory data rather than alerts, problems, or maintenances. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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