zabbix_item_history

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

With no annotations, the description itself carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it flags truncation behavior (truncated: true, most recent slice) and states caps for hours and limit. It does not cover response errors or auth requirements, but for a read-only history fetch the disclosed behavior is the most important.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by the truncation caveat and a compact parameter list. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because the Args block restates parameter names from the schema, but each line adds operational detail.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation ingredients well: all four parameters, caps, and the truncated flag. The return shape is only loosely described as 'meta + history points', but this is sufficient for a bounded single-item history fetch.

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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the Args block is the sole semantic source for parameters. It adds provenance for item_id, caps (168 hours, 500 points), and how to omit target for the default, going beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 opening line names a precise action and resource: bounded metric detail and history points for one Zabbix item. The Zabbix-specific scope and one-item limit clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like zabbix_hosts, zabbix_problems, and prtg_history.

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 call it: when a single Zabbix item's bounded history is needed, with item_id sourced from the host's items. It does not list explicit alternatives or exclusions, but no misleading usage cues are present.

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