zabbix_get_history

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 only says 'Get historical data' without revealing whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, how large the response can be, or what raw history records look like. The parameter schema covers limit and output, but the description itself adds almost no behavioral context.

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, focus-built sentence: 'Get historical data for items from Zabbix.' It contains no redundant words and front-loads the core purpose immediately, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal and fails to explain return value structure, typical usage scenarios, or performance implications. It is not complete enough for an agent to understand the full scope of the tool's behavior without relying heavily on the schema alone.

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 provides 100% coverage for all 8 parameters, each with detailed descriptions (e.g., history types, time_from/time_till, limit). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 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 the action ('Get') and resource ('historical data for items from Zabbix'). It is specific enough to indicate this tool retrieves history rather than latest data or trends, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zabbix_get_trends or zabbix_get_item_history_range.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention how it relates to zabbix_get_latest_data, zabbix_get_trends, or zabbix_get_item_history_range, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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