zabbix_get_actionable_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by enumerating categories ('unacknowledged problems, long-running issues, unavailable hosts') and stating prioritization by urgency. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only status, rate limits, or whether the response aggregates data from multiple endpoints, which would be valuable transparency.

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 that effectively front-loads the core purpose. Every clause contributes value: it names the resource, specifies the criteria, and notes prioritization. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (nested options object, no required params, no output schema), the description offers a solid overview of what to expect. It would benefit from mentioning the response format or any default limitations, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to operate. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the clear scope 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for maxItems and priorityFilter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; the mention of 'prioritized by urgency' loosely aligns with priorityFilter but does not explain parameter usage. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states what the tool does with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('actionable items'), and defining scope ('requiring immediate human intervention including unacknowledged problems, long-running issues, and unavailable hosts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zabbix_get_problems or zabbix_get_critical_issues by framing the output as action-oriented and prioritized by urgency.

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 usage scenarios by specifying the type of items retrieved, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as zabbix_get_problems or zabbix_get_critical_issues. No exclusion criteria or alternative references are given, leaving the decision somewhat to the agent's inference.

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