zabbix_get_infrastructure_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether any permissions are needed, or if there are rate limits or side effects. It does list output components, but that is more about return value than behavioral traits.

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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description does well to list the output categories (health score, problem counts, host statistics, critical action items). However, it does not detail the structure or format of these items, leaving some ambiguity for a complex tool. The simple input schema is adequately covered.

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%, as the nested 'options' object and its properties (hostGroupIds, severityThreshold) all have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so a baseline score of 3 applies.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get overall infrastructure health summary'. It enumerates the returned data (health score, problem counts by severity, host statistics, critical action items), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like zabbix_get_system_overview or zabbix_get_critical_issues.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a general health overview but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, especially given the many overlapping sibling tools such as zabbix_get_system_overview and zabbix_get_actionable_items.

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