zabbix_get_alerts

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, yet it only states 'Get alerts (sent notifications)'. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns a list or paginated results, any authentication needs, or how parameters like time_from/time_till affect the query. The description provides no behavioral traits beyond the action itself.

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 with no fluff. 'Get alerts (sent notifications) from Zabbix' is as concise as possible, conveying the essential purpose without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 high complexity (17 parameters), absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the one-sentence description is severely underwhelming. It does not explain the return format, the semantics of the default output fields, how filtering works, or any performance considerations. The description is incomplete for an agent to understand the full context of using this tool.

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 covers 100% of the 17 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning; it does not mention filtering, sorting, or output selection. Thus, the schema fully handles parameter semantics, and the description adds no extra value beyond the baseline.

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 'Get alerts (sent notifications) from Zabbix' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (alerts), and the parenthetical 'sent notifications' clarifies the meaning of 'alerts' in Zabbix context, distinguishing it from related tools like get_problems or get_events. It is concise and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zabbix_get_problems or zabbix_get_events. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for choosing among related monitoring tools.

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