zabbix_maintenance_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or authentication needs. It fails to do so, merely stating it is a method without any behavioral context.

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 only 4 words long, which is too brief. While conciseness is valued, it sacrifices essential information that should be present, making it under-specified rather than efficiently clear.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter, output schema exists, many siblings), the description does not provide sufficient context. It fails to differentiate from other maintenance tools or explain what the output contains, resulting in a completely inadequate description.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'params' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'params' should contain (e.g., filter criteria or IDs). This leaves the agent without any semantic understanding of how to configure the call.

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 'Zabbix API maintenance.get method' identifies the tool as a retrieval operation for maintenance entities, which is a basic purpose. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name without elaborating on what specific data is retrieved, making it only marginally clear compared to a tautology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like zabbix_maintenance_exists or zabbix_maintenance_get. There is no mention of appropriate contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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