zabbix_item_history

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden — and it delivers real behavioral context: the truncated flag, that the returned series is the most recent slice rather than the full window, and the 168h/500 point caps. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose line followed by a single high-value sentence on truncation semantics and a compact Args block. Given 0% schema coverage, the Args list earns its space; there is no 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the shape (meta + history points) and the important truncation caveat. It stops short of describing the exact return structure or pagination, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully: it documents all four parameters including their caps (hours capped at 168, limit capped at 500), the source of item_id, and the meaning of target ('from config; omit for the default'). Every parameter gains meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch bounded metric detail (meta + history points) for one Zabbix item. The '[READ]' tag and the 'one Zabbix item' scoping clearly separate it from siblings like zabbix_hosts, zabbix_events, and the PRTG equivalents.

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 implies usage by noting item_id comes 'from the host's items', which points the agent at zabbix_hosts first, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for retrieving history. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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