task_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the domain framing of what a task is, but says nothing about result lifecycle (does status change, does the record expire via ttl, is a task removed after completion), which is the behavior an agent monitoring a task actually needs. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with zero redundancy: identification, domain definition, and usage, in that order. Front-loaded with the verb+resource so an agent can decide within the first two words.

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?

A read-only listing tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters does not need much more. The key non-obvious concept — that Zabbix 'tasks' are internal work items, not user tickets — is explained. Only the task lifecycle/status semantics are left implicit.

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 the schema already documents output projection, server selection, taskids/proxyids filtering, raw_json policy, and extra_params. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, which is acceptable but is the baseline rather than added value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve tasks') and then defines the domain object: internal Zabbix work items such as diagnostic data collection requests or item value checks. That definition is genuinely valuable because 'task' is ambiguous next to the many other *_get siblings. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from any particular sibling.

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?

'Use this to monitor the status of previously created tasks' gives a clear use context, so an agent knows this is a follow-up/status-check tool rather than a discovery tool. There are no explicit exclusions, no named alternatives (e.g. event_get or problem_get), and no note on whether it can be used to poll long-running jobs.

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