zabbix_execute_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the action 'Execute a script' without mentioning potential side effects on the host, required permissions, synchronous/asynchronous behavior, or return values. This is a significant gap for a script execution tool.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a high score for conciseness, though its brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the difference between host-context and event-context scripts, what happens after execution, or any side effects, leaving the agent without critical context for correct invocation.

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 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The description itself adds no additional param context, thus the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Execute' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a script on a host in Zabbix'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zabbix_create_script, zabbix_get_scripts, and zabbix_update_script, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for running scripts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no mention of needing a pre-existing script or permissions, so guidance is only implicit.

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