zabbix_get_discovered_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but provides no details about filtering behavior, default outputs, pagination, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 fluff or redundant information. It is efficiently front-loaded and does not repeat parameter names or schema details. Very readable and focused.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, how filters interact, or how this relates to discovery rules and hosts. The rich schema provides parameter semantics, but the description fails to give the broader context needed for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the general purpose. According to the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters well, which applies 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 action ('Get') and the resource ('services discovered by network discovery rules'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like zabbix_get_discovered_hosts and zabbix_get_discovery_rules. The verb+resource+scope is specific 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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when you need discovered services from network discovery rules. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or present alternatives, such as using zabbix_get_discovered_hosts for hosts instead. This is adequate but not explicit.

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