zabbix_get_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves actions and that filtering and output options are available, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe any side effects, default behavior, or limitations. The term 'Get' implies safety, but deeper behavioral context is missing. This is a minimal but non-contradictory disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get actions from Zabbix with filtering and output options'. Every word is purposeful, with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core functionality in just 10 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?

Despite 17 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no domain context about what a Zabbix 'action' is, how the various filters (hostids, triggerids, etc.) relate, or what the returned data structure looks like. The schema offers detailed parameter descriptions, but the description itself is too sparse to make the tool self-contained for an agent unfamiliar with Zabbix actions. It reads more like a label than a complete tool explanation.

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 all 17 parameters are individually documented. The description's phrase 'with filtering and output options' adds a high-level summary but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It neither enriches nor detracts from the schema, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get actions from Zabbix', identifying the verb (Get), resource (actions), and platform. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zabbix_create_action or zabbix_update_action, but the verb alone makes the read-only purpose apparent, so it meets the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' criterion.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It merely states what it does. There is no mention that this tool is for listing/inspecting actions rather than modifying them, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb 'Get' and the tool name.

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