zabbix_script_exists

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. While 'exists' implies a safe check, the lack of any behavioral details (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits) leaves the agent uninformed.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks substantive content. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place due to insufficient information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description should at least indicate what the tool returns (e.g., boolean true/false). The sibling list includes many similar tools, so a more informative description is necessary for correct selection.

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 a single parameter 'params' with 0% description coverage. The description adds no information about what properties the params object should contain (e.g., script name, filter criteria). The agent must infer or use trial and error.

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 script.exists method' is a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what 'exists' means (e.g., check for existence of a script by some criteria), and fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like zabbix_script_get or zabbix_script_create.

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. With over 100 sibling tools, the agent receives no context on appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions for using this method.

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