zabbix_triggers

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

The [READ] tag and the default PROBLEM filter disclose important behavioral traits, and the tool has no annotations to rely on. However, it does not describe output format, pagination, or any other side effects beyond being a read operation.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a structured Args section. The only minor inefficiency is repeating the PROBLEM-state concept in both the intro and the only_problems parameter explanation.

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 annotations, the description leaves return values and error behavior unexplained. It covers the parameters and default behavior well, but an agent gets no information about what fields are returned or how to interpret the results.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly explains only_problems as controlling whether only PROBLEM-state triggers are returned and describes target as a Zabbix target name from config. This sufficiently compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly identifies the tool as reading Zabbix triggers and specifies the default scope of 'currently firing (PROBLEM)'. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling zabbix_problems tool.

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 gives parameter meaning but no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as zabbix_problems or zabbix_events. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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