Summarize Zabbix trend data for up to three monitoring items by weighting samples per time bucket, then return time buckets and sample coverage.
按趋势桶样本数加权汇总，并返回时间桶与样本覆盖情况。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | 查询时长。建议：磁盘168h、内存72h、CPU24h、网络48h | |
| itemids | Yes | 监控项ID（最多3个） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the aggregation logic and output components, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, limits beyond schema, or error behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in the safety profile.
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 a single information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and output, making it efficient, though it does not use any structural separation.
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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks any routing guidance relative to trend_get, and since no annotations exist, additional behavioral context would improve completeness.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only describes the operation itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 operation: sample-count-weighted aggregation over trend buckets, returning time buckets and sample coverage. This clearly differentiates it from raw retrieval tools like trend_get, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as trend_get or history_get. The description gives no preferred contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.