zabbix_get_item_history_range

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 'automatic value type detection' but omits critical details like the read-only nature, default parameter values, pagination, or response structure. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool.

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 unnecessary words. It delivers the core purpose and a notable feature efficiently.

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?

Without annotations, an output schema, or richer description, the tool lacks important context. The description does not explain what the response contains, how hours_back and limit interact, or what 'automatic value type detection' means for the returned data. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already handles the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Get historical data for a specific item over a time range with automatic value type detection,' clearly specifying the action (get), the target (historical data), and a distinguishing feature (automatic value type detection). This differentiates it from sibling tools like zabbix_get_latest_data and zabbix_get_trends.

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 phrase 'over a time range' implies the tool is used when time-bounded historical data is needed, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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