zabbix_get_critical_issues

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 mentions the severity filter and return context (acknowledgment status, duration), but does not clarify whether only active/open problems are returned, how results are sorted, or any default filtering behavior beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately states the key constraints and return fields, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has a nested options object and no output schema, but the description conveys the core purpose effectively. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether it returns only current problems vs resolved ones, and lacks explicit details on output interpretation. The schema covers parameters, but the description could be more complete given the lack of annotations.

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 schema fully describes both parameters (limit and unacknowledgedOnly) with clear descriptions, so the tool description adds little beyond echoing acknowledgment status. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 the tool retrieves critical and high severity issues requiring immediate attention, with a specific scope and return fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like zabbix_get_problems and zabbix_get_events, which likely return broader sets of problems or events.

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 for urgent issue triage by focusing on critical/high severity, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. It lacks exclusions like 'for all problems use zabbix_get_problems' or 'for historical data use zabbix_get_events'.

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