zabbix_triggers

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond that – that results are filtered to PROBLEM state by default – but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or whether target resolution can fail.

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 with the [READ] marker and resource, followed by a compact Args block. No filler sentences; each line adds something. Slightly terse on the resource line, but efficient overall.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are present. However, the description does not explain what a trigger record contains or how it relates to the near-identical zabbix_problems sibling, leaving the agent to guess at the boundary.

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 carries the full burden, and it does: only_problems is explained with its default and effect, and target is explained as a config name that can be omitted for the default. Both parameters gain meaning not present in 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 [READ] tag supplies the verb and 'Zabbix triggers' names the resource, with the parenthetical 'by default only those currently firing (PROBLEM)' clarifying scope. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling zabbix_problems, which appears to cover overlapping ground.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g. zabbix_problems vs zabbix_events). The only contextual hint is the default PROBLEM filter, which is stated as behavior rather than as a routing rule.

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