zabbix_widget_get

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The agent has no information about side effects or security 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?

While the description is concise, it is too brief to be useful. It sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity, leaving the agent without actionable 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 complexity of Zabbix tools, the lack of annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description should provide context about widget entity, return structure, and usage patterns. It fails to do so, making the tool nearly unusable without external documentation.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'params' parameter at all. The schema defines it as an optional object or null, but without any hints about expected properties, the agent cannot construct a valid 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 widget.get method' is a tautology, essentially restating the tool name with no additional context about what a widget is or what the get operation retrieves. It fails to distinguish itself from other get methods like zabbix_widget_exists.

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 alternative methods (e.g., zabbix_widget_get vs zabbix_widget_exists). The description does not specify any prerequisites or conditions for invoking this tool.

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