zabbix_maintenances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure; the [READ] prefix signals a read-only operation and the phrase 'with their hosts/groups and periods' clarifies the returned scope. However, it does not address authentication requirements, error behavior, or explicitly confirm that no state is modified beyond the READ label. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 READ marker and return scope appear first, followed by a single structured Args entry. Every line earns its place with no redundant boilerplate 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, and the description covers the return content and target argument. However, it omits response format, potential errors, and any situational guidance for choosing this over sibling Zabbix tools. It is sufficient for a minimal read operation but not fully self-contained.

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 compensate. The Args block defines target as 'Zabbix target name from config' and instructs to omit for the default, adding meaningful context about where the value comes from and its optionality beyond the schema's bare null default. It does not enumerate possible target names, but for a config-derived value this is adequate.

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 uses a [READ] marker and the resource 'Zabbix maintenance windows with their hosts/groups and periods,' clearly indicating a retrieval tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like zabbix_create_maintenance and zabbix_delete_maintenance via the READ prefix and resource focus, though a more explicit verb such as 'list' would make it fully unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to select this tool over related Zabbix read tools such as zabbix_problems, zabbix_hosts, or zabbix_events. The only usage note is the target parameter description, which addresses parameter behavior rather than tool selection. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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